# World population



## Ivan the Immigrant (May 20, 2014)

In 1904 there were 1 billion people on planet. In 1927 - 2 billion, 1960 - 3 billion etc... Today there is 7.2 billion. In last cetury world population multiplied 7 times. World is technologically developing, land is urbanizing at progressive rate. But how far it can go on like this. Is there any limitation? There are also some crazy speculations that World population is leaning toward infinity. How can that happend? I always knew there were billion of people living in China. But i was quite surprised when i learned that India is sligtly behind China. China has about 1.3 billion and India 1.1 billion. 

So, population is growing, world is shrinking. How far it can go? I mean, can our current technological and organization level support existing rate of population growing?

Do we need some more progressive urbanized model that will surpass city. What would it be like, and what would it be it's name?









img source:www.susps.org


----------



## Ivan the Immigrant (May 20, 2014)

> *The Socio-technological Singularity*. Although acceleration and complexity have made most concrete developments impossible to predict, large scale, statistical factors, such as wealth, life expectancy, intelligence, productivity, speed of information transmission and speed of information processing, increase in a surprisingly regular way. This makes it possible to extrapolate their development into the future. Most of these growth processes are exponential, characterized by a constant doubling period, or a constant increase in percentage per year. This means that the underlying growth mechanism is stable, producing a fixed number of new items for a given number of existing ones....
> 
> 
> However, some processes grow even more quickly. For example, population growth in percentage per year is much larger now than it was a century ago. This is because medical progress has augmented the gap between the percentage of births and the percentage of deaths per year. If the growth of the world population over the past millenia is plotted out, the pattern appears to be"hyperbolic"*rather than exponential. Hyperbolic growth is characterized by the fact that the inverse of the increasing variable (e.g. 1 divided by the total population) evolves according to a straight line that slopes downward. When the line reaches zero, this means that the variable (world population in this case) would become equal to 1 divided by zero, which means infinity. This is essentially different from an exponential growth process, which can never reach infinity in a finite time.
> ...


*Try to imagine what would it be like if world population reaches infinity.* This is practicaly unthinkable. Where would all those people fit into? Dimensions of our planet are limited. But anyway, try to imagine. First thing we would notice is people coming from nowhere. Just from down street. And they would be coming more and more. Once there would be full of people, they would start climbing on each other...Although unimaginable, is something like this already happening? For example, we have been in recent times receiving more and more information via internet. It is surprising for me to see some cities i never heard of before. For example in China. There seem to be somekind of city inflation. And these are all cities of millions of inhabitants. Just remember Dubai. What we can see today in Dubai is practically science fiction. Whole brand new city that rose from nowhere. What was not so long ago small fishing willage, is today one of leading cities in world...

Of course, it is not realistic to expect world population reaching infinity. For obvious reasons. But is there maybe somekind of change or shift that we might expect. The shift or occurance that will naturally balance population. Somekind of socio natural evolution. You know, like astronomic object called black hole. Dying star is collapsing into singularity, and in that moment nature stabilizes ongoing singularity in form of black hole. So, can we expect that nature stabilizes ongoing rising of world population by forming some new phenomena or occurence that will affect all of us, and fenomena we never sow before?



...


----------



## munchymunch (Feb 9, 2014)

From census.gov










I'll be gone before critical mass. :lol:


----------



## lowenmeister (Oct 1, 2012)

Actually demographers are forecasting the end of population growth somewhere around 2100 because of low birth rates. World population will be around 11 billion then. 
most of this population growth will come from sub saharan Africa because this is where people still have 4-5 children each( economic development leads to fewer childrens born but there has not been much development in sub saharan Africa where development is on an almost pre industrial level).The rest of the world will only see a controlled marginal expansion in population(outliers exist here too,Egypt and Pakistan for example is in deep trouble with huge populations and relatively high population growth in these two arid countries). 
Demographers forecast that Nigeria will be the fastest growing country in population growing from 170 million today to overtaking the US as the third most populous country by 2050 with some 450+ million people and by 2100 Nigeria will have a population close to a billion overtaking China. Nigeria had some 18 million people in the year 1900,USA had some 76 million and China had 415 million. Nigeria is only slightly larger than Texas in area. 
The UAE is the most extreme example the last 100 years. The precursor state to the UAE was Trucial Oman and this country only had 70 000 people living in it in 1900 today there live 9 million or an 130 fold increase, mainly through migration


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

True, the question how far world population will grow and when it will peak will be decided in subsaharan Africa. 

Outside of subsaharan Africa there are only a few question marks which don't follow a continuous trend from high to low fertility (Algeria, Egypt, Pakistan, Central Asia, Afghanistan, Indonesia). For Egypt for example it's perfectly possible that they will end up with 160 million people in 2050 or with 120 million. But put together these are very small margins of error compared to subsaharan Africa. In subsaharan Africa, the trajectory of growth of every nation there in the future is completely unknown since fertility in almost all countries there hasn't started falling yet and nobody knows when it'll start falling. One scenario could be that they do a similar transition as Iran and decelerate their population growth very quickly. Then world population will most likely peak below 9 billion. On the other hand they could retain their high fertility rates for a few more decades and then start a very gradual and slow decline. If that were true, world population would rise above 12 billion and soon half of the world population would live in subsaharan Africa.


----------



## lowenmeister (Oct 1, 2012)

Egypt wont survive 160 million people+increasing desertification. I read somewhere that Egypt actually had a lowish tfr of 2.8 or something in 2008 but this increased to 3.5 today.
Egypt(near the nile where 95% of the population live) would have a population density of 3000 inh/sqkm or roughly the same population density as metro Tokyo. I just hope Europe is ready for the inevitable collapse of their southern neighbour.Egypt has one of the lowest economic growth rates in the developing world and one of the most backwards and conservative populations in the arab world,with the worst womens right in the already misogynist arab world.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

lowenmeister said:


> Egypt wont survive 160 million people+increasing desertification. I read somewhere that Egypt actually had a lowish tfr of 2.8 or something in 2008 but this increased to 3.5 today.
> Egypt(near the nile where 95% of the population live) would have a population density of 3000 inh/sqkm or roughly the same population density as metro Tokyo. I just hope Europe is ready for the inevitable collapse of their southern neighbour.Egypt has one of the lowest economic growth rates in the developing world and one of the most backwards and conservative populations in the arab world,with the worst womens right in the already misogynist arab world.


Actually the population density would be 4,000/km² since today it is around 2,000 if one discounts deserts. This is already double the density of Bangladesh which is usually presented as an example of very high population density. Banglades not only has half the density but also roughly half the population growth rate of Egypt. So on a square kilometre Bangladesh adds roughly 15 people per year. Egypt adds more than 45 people per square kilometre every year!


----------



## Sr. Burns (Nov 7, 2014)

We are a lot, we need a GREAT WAR to control this population of shit.


----------



## lowenmeister (Oct 1, 2012)

Sr. Burns said:


> We are a lot, we need a GREAT WAR to control this population of shit.


An limited nuclear war that would kill 800 million,would not stop population growth(grows by 80 million births per year)for more than 10 years or so. Economic development and investment in women education is the only antidote for excessive population growth, it has worked for otherwise backwards nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia, BRIC nations like India and China and South Africa and everywhere else it has been tried. It is why world population will stop growing somewhere in the early 2100s


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

lowenmeister said:


> An limited nuclear war that would kill 800 million,would not stop population growth(grows by 80 million births per year)for more than 10 years or so. Economic development and investment in women education is the only antidote for excessive population growth, it has worked for otherwise backwards nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia, BRIC nations like India and China and South Africa and everywhere else it has been tried. It is why world population will stop growing somewhere in the early 2100s


Not to forget that a big war like this always leads to a baby boom afterwards, since the population that survived somehow wants to make up for the lost ones. Both Cambodia and Rwanda for example experienced huge baby booms after mass killings and genocides ended in these two countries. 

So no. A war isn't only very terrible but it is also a very bad way of trying to reduce a population.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

China's population will stabilize and begin to decline quite soon. All these years of the one-child policy certainly stopped a lot of population growth but due to the sexist mindset of the Chinese, many girls were aborted. Now you have fewer young women than men and they aren't having the number of kids they use to. Also the huge population born before the policy are going into retirement with relatively few new workers to take their place. China is the only non-developed nation to have this problem which the West does but the West has far superior intellectual, social, and economic institutions to deal with it. China doesn't even have a national pension system. 

There can be declines in population rates in many places like India and the Far East as women gain more education and independence but in the Muslim countries that may not come for decades, if ever.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Sr. Burns said:


> We are a lot, we need a GREAT WAR to control this population of shit.


Nah, just more gay people.


----------



## Ivan the Immigrant (May 20, 2014)

Here is similar thread in Skybar section.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

isaidso said:


> Nah, just more gay people.


More gay people won't do the trick. You need more lesbians, because women are the important factor in population development.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Chrissib said:


> More gay people won't do the trick. You need more lesbians, because women are the important factor in population development.


Straight women can't procreate if there aren't any men willing to sleep with them. Buying their sperm won't be enough to keep the population growing.


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

Sr. Burns said:


> We are a lot, we need a GREAT WAR to control this population of shit.


There is a civil war going on in Syria, but that war will not significantly reduce the population, especially not when syrian women in average give birth to 7,2 children.

We need a war like WW2 where 60 million people died.


----------



## Gobbo (Jul 26, 2007)

In your opinion is it true that the Illuminati want to reduce the World population to 500.000.000? That´s what is written on the Georgia Guidestones......

While I do think that the Illuminati are real, I doubt that they are THAT evil and cinical to want so many people dead...

Some sort of population reduction would however be good for our planet, I think. But I think that 500 millions are very few people. In my opinion 5 billions would be okay.....

And I don´t think that it´s okay to kill people in order to control the population, because that´s evil. No, the only way is to prevent them from having too many children....so in the countries where they get 6-7 children, they should start to get only 2-3 children. That would be the right way to control the population. I don´t like evil ideas like reducing the population by war and by controlled ebola outbreaks and so on (some suggest that the ebola outbreak is orchestrated by the elite to reduce the population......I doubt so, but on the other hand you never know...).


----------



## Gobbo (Jul 26, 2007)

Sr. Burns said:


> We are a lot, we need a GREAT WAR to control this population of shit.


You sound like Henry Kissinger or some luciferian Illuminati member:nuts:

I agree that we are probably too many on this planet, but I just don´t like the idea of reducing the population by wars and other evil stuff. The only right way is to prevent people from having too many children. And maybe the governments should promote homosexuality.......that would be an effective population control and harmless, because you don´t have to kill anybody.


----------



## Gobbo (Jul 26, 2007)

NordikNerd said:


> There is a civil war going on in Syria, but that war will not significantly reduce the population, especially not when syrian women in average give birth to 7,2 children.
> 
> We need a war like WW2 where 60 million people died.


No, we don´t need a war. That´s sick and evil. 

But we need those syrian women to have only two children in stead of 7 children. That´s the way to reduce World population. Not by evil wars and murders.

Sometimes when I read this forum I am thinking if I am on the official Illuminati-forum. Because it´s well known that the Illuminati also want to control the population by wars, false flag terror attacks and false flag ebola outbreaks and stuff like that. It´s actually shocking to see how many of you guys who like those ideas. ARE you from the Illuminati?^^




isaidso said:


> Nah, just more gay people.


Well, I am doing my job. I am gay and will never have children.

Actually I like the idea of population control through homosexuality. First of all because it´s effective and second because I will get a lot more sex if we suddenly have 300% more homosexual guys.:banana:

The Illuminati already have a gay agenda (which is why the world elite practises gay orgies at Bohemian Grove, for example, just as at Bilderberg 2014 some of the members were caught by paparazzis during a gay ritual), but Putin is against it. And that´s one of the main reasons why the West doesn´t like Putin and are fighting him. Obama is very much pro gay as are the rest of the World leaders. Putin is a pain in the ass of the Illuminati gay agenda, therefore - among other reasons - they want to get rid of him.

I think that the Illuminati should start to introduce population control through homosexual agenda and birth control and stop all the wars and false flags that they have. I believe that it´s possible for the Illuminati to achieve their goals without having to do dirty and evil stuff.


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2014)

Time to put caps on overpopulated countries I suppose. Perhaps 1 child per couple in countries that have a density >100 per km2.


----------



## PD (Jun 11, 2007)

Sr. Burns said:


> We are a lot, we need a GREAT WAR to control this population of shit.


Terrible idea but since you hopin for it here's hoping your region is the one affected.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

If you want a great war, wipe out the richest nations -the 5% of the population using up 50% of the resources in the West, Gulf and Japan. That's how it would figure if it ever came to reducing population via you know, killing people.


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica (Oct 24, 2011)

IMO, the biggest long-term issue will be jobs, as it always has, but with the added modern problems of automation of the work processes (both high and low added value) and the emergence of additive manufacturing. 

The automation of the economy to get enhanced productivity & precision in factories or the digitization of the work flow through ICT systems, is and will have an impact on both low and high value added industries. The fact is that most of the people who will be born in the upcoming decades will not necessarily have the skills to integrate the industries of the future.

All these jobless young people that we once viewed as a potential cheap workforce for low-value added jobs, will not have the same opportunities.



Ruchir Sharma - Managing Director and the head of the Emerging Markets Equity team at Morgan Stanley Investment Management said:


> Another casualty will be the notion of the so-called demographic dividend. Because China's boom was driven in part by a large generation of young people entering the work force, consultants now scour census data looking for similar population bulges as an indicator of the next big economic miracle. But such demographic determinism assumes that the resulting workers will have the necessary skills to compete in the global market and that governments will set the right policies to create jobs. In the world of the last decade, when a rising tide lifted all economies, the concept of a demographic dividend briefly made sense. But that world is gone.


http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138219/ruchir-sharma/broken-brics?page=show

The example below is exactly what I am talking about. A low value added process that would have once been done in low labour cost countries can be done by machines and without the need of actually hiring more personnel.


----------



## lowenmeister (Oct 1, 2012)

I agree,joblessness is already a problem for much of the world,once automation of service industries kicks in we will need less and less people. Humans will go the way of the horse(they are still around but its mostly for show or as a human hobby ),after the tractor and the automobile made them redundant. Thats what makes the African population boom so scary,in the end the massive african population might not have any factories or industries to employ them,those countries will have permanently missed their chance to industrialize,without a job many will turn to crime or extremism, anarchy will reign.


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica (Oct 24, 2011)

It is indeed quite alarming. There will definitively be difficult in the developed world, I can only imagine what it will be in the developing world.

I am wondering how will the governments around the world deal with all these unemployed individuals? As the video suggests, 45% of the workforce that could potentially be out of work and that is in the developed world alone.


----------



## Spocket (Feb 11, 2006)

Every time this subject comes up, people get it into their heads that we need to insist on population caps in developed nations. What for ? Those are the nations that already have negative population growth before immigration is factored in.

Secondly, wars do next to nothing at stopping population growth. 

Thirdly, you can't just turn people gay any more than you can turn gay people straight. And saying that we only need to focus on one sex or the other is equally pointless. We don't actually need either sex anymore if we really want to make babies. 

Fourth, only two approaches to population control have proven effective to date. 1: Economic sanctions enforced by government bureaucracy...the Chinese solution.
2: Education. Education alone seems to be the more effective method.

As far as whether or not world population can keep expanding indefinitely...well, obviously there's a limit. Some argue that we'll find solutions to food distribution issues and food production. That may well prove true but eventually the problem is going to become one of economic opportunity. Too many people and not enough jobs. Once that happens, lawlessness will take over because people will be desperate. 

As for this chatter about "the Illuminati" and whatnot...good grief. Are we having a serious conversation here or not ?


----------



## Ivan the Immigrant (May 20, 2014)

Current world population:7,280,096,770


----------

