Scholars have predicted a “population bomb” for centuries. But contemporary researchers know that our population’s growth is slowing and is likely to continue to slow. When exactly? A recent study suggests our population will stabilize around 2050. What forces are driving this population transformation?
Badged for taking a stand against Malthusianism. I have tried to explain many, many times that the population growth curve is bending toward a level or even downward path decades hence, but not one Malthus junior will believe me. Hell they aren't even willing to look at the evidence. The progeny of Malthus have been crying that the sky is falling for almost two centuries, but can't seem to grasp that all their tears are for naught. Not that Malthus was a fool, he made valuable contributions to economics and his theories on population growth were plausible but wrong. I wish others would accept that a two hundred year history of failed doomsaying merited a revision in their thinking, or at least a fresh look at the evidence.
I think given the evidence of the time, Malthus had sound reasoning. What he didn't (probably couldn't) predict was the stunning growth in technology that has increased crop yields by orders of magnitude, as well as the rise of the middle class, with its de-emphasis on having a large family. Organisms choosing not to breed given the opportunity is pretty new. But you're definitely correct that when a hypothesis is failing, its the hypothesis, and not the evidence that needs to be tweaked. That's a big problem in social science generally, I think. What's the old joke in economics? Something like, "Those data are interesting, but do they fit the theory?!"
Great point cgod. It is surprising to me that Malthusian ideas are still in vogue (I even encounter them among graduate students in my department)! I think it has to do with the fact that humans seem to default to a dystopian narrative of the future. This is the common line of reasoning: If x, y, and z factor remain the same (e.g., agricultural output, standard of living, etc.), and all of our current problems remain the same (e.g., climate change, increasing population size), then catastrophe will ensue. Of course under this line of reasoning catastrophe will always be on the horizon (hence persistent Malthusians). And b_b I couldn't agree more. As I stated in the article, Malthus was not a bad scientist. He simply could not have predicted what the future of the human population would be, there was not enough data and something like the global emergence of our species has never happened before! Also, I have developed the opinion that we do not actually have a carrying capacity (so ecologists can stop looking for one). I think that our carrying capacity is flexible and dependent on our technological capabilities. What do you guys think about that?
Carrying capacity is a system parameter that can only be determined empirically, as far as I know. It is a function of many things itself (e.g. food supply, disease prevalence, predation, and--in the case of humans--new technologies for energy extraction), and it is definitely not static. I'm sure we'll asymptotically approach some population, but I don't think that this population is necessarily our carrying capacity, at least it won't be if we can find a cheap, reliable, clean source of energy.
Nice post, I found it encouraging. Have you seen any of the Hans Rosling TED talks? They're quite good. It's well apparent that so many of our current societal ills can be curbed and even eradicated by the empowerment of women. I know we've come a long ways in western civilization, but we still have some work to do. Places like Afghanistan, Sudan and the DRC are so incredibly far behind in this sense that it makes me wonder what they'll look like in 50 years from a population standpoint?
From the article: Hans Rosling's video are massively influential to me. I feel like he has a fantastic grasp on the future of human demography. In terms of the development of Afghanistan, Sudan, and DRC, those countries represent the biggest challenges. Certainly by 2050 they will not be at the development level of China, India, Brazil, Russia, Nigeria, Ghana, and Turkey. However, they will be much improved. There are several technologies on the horizon that will help the entire world essentially erase infant mortality and many easily curable communicable diseases that still plague the developing world. And as those countries urbanize with the rest of the world, widespread female education should become more and more common.Statistician Hans Rosling has calculated that all of these scenarios are probable. I agree. If current economic development trends continue we should expect the average person's income in India and China (for example) to reach the same levels of the U.K., U.S.A., and Japan by 2048. Check out Rosling's TED talk on this: Asia's rise – how and when.
I read the bit about Rosling but didn't catch the TED shout-out. My bad. I wonder what role the diminishing influence of religion has on the population curb? "Go forth and maketh babies and baptise them in the blood of our savior that they might too bring forth the seed of god". Catholics are famous for large families. Grow the flock! I made up that bit of verse. My guess is that something analogous is in the bible somewhere... :)
I'm not really sure what direct influence religion has on these trends. But I can say that ridiculing the pope for preventing the distribution of condoms in Africa is justified. We must make sure that all methods of contraception are easily attainable and widely used throughout the world. They help people plan how many offspring they want. And most educated people in urban settings opt for smaller families. The faster we can stabilize the world population the better.
I grew up going to catholic school with some affluent families that were on average, pretty large. -Not a very scientific data set, just my personal experience. Your point isn't lost on me though.
Mongolia is 50-75% urban? Huh. Need to rethink my mental picture of Mongolia. PS, typo at:The U.N. projects that it will be . Considering that countries in the developed world have already urbanized, the majority of these rural-to-urban migrations will be in the developing world (figure below).
Also, Mongolia is already predominantly urban: http://i.imgur.com/sJTwnmG.gif Very few people want to live in desolate cold landscapes away from people and with few conveniences. Now that we can support large urban populations, people want to live there.
My brother spent a month there last year for business. Cold and Desolate are good descriptions, even in the city. Even though it was crazy cold, he enjoyed his stay and almost moved out there because of their burgeoning economy. -petroleum. I was bummed out when I heard he wasn't moving there. I was looking forward to visiting.
Irrespective of whether there will be a bomb or not, I feel our population of 7B right now is too high. May be the proration/predition will be right - but who is to prevent us to consciously controlling our population? May be 2B is right for our planet. I feel we need to take it and keep it there to be sustainable.
So, with fertility below replacement and with social/welfare policies that can only be funded by a young society what is going to happen in Europe, Japan, and the US? Are we going to let the old fend for themselves? Or are we going to force the young with little wealth ( but perhaps high income) support the high wealth ( but perhaps low income ) elderly?
What happens at the moment in Europe and the US is immigration. We keep a stable population because of new immigrants. What is happening in Japan is population decline because they don't allow non-Japanese people to become permanent Japanese citizens. Eventually they will be forced economically to permit immigration.
That is a great point. However, that solves the short term problem, but not the long term problem. Unless you can say that there will poor countries that are willing to allow limitless emigration to the US forever and the immigration solves the social/welfare problems instead of exacerbating them. Immigrants are usually poor, how are poor people going to solve welfare problems? Immigration has solved Europes population problems, but certainly not their economic/welfare ones.
How these transitions effect social/welfare problems is really another topic (although an equally interesting one - and I feel as though I would need to do more research to give my informed opinion). And you are right that immigration solves no ones long-term problem if the whole world develops and has a below replacement level fertility. However by 2050 I feel as though life expectancy will be much longer and humans will not be the only sentient beings on the planet (robots will be as well). So the situation is a little hard to predict.
I just thought I'd put this out there since the original article didn't seem to give the other side of below replacement fertility levels.
I hear you, it should be relabelled. That is a valid point. However, when I found that diagram I knew what they were trying to illustrate.
Another crap article from the wilfully blind- so climate change has nothing to do with overpopulation and the sixth extinction is scaremongering? It is obvious that too many people jammed into too little space is a recipe for conflict, quite apart from competition for resources causing war. It is not beyond possibility that runaway warming will terminate humankind, or effectively end civilisation- but of course, that's also scaremongering...
I'm not going to waste my time responding to a similar comment. See this response (also below)
Charlie Darwin <theantislamist@gmail.com>
12:04 AM (1 hour ago) to hubski
Well my reply was too confrontational I guess- but what do you expect when ignoring the blue whale in the jacuzzi?
Honestly no discussion of humanity's future is relevant without including climate change and how to ameliorate it;
nothing can be done to nullify CC because it is already too far advanced for current or anticipated technologies to
have any effect.
I read the link and some of the fusion claims but as usual, it is 'just around the corner'... or according to Michio Kaku,
at least 20 years away. Are the following points valid, or not? 1. Laboratory fusion is easy compared to industrial scale engineering
2. Construction costs are astronomical
3. ITER is already twice over budget
4. Safety- what if the magnetic containment of the plasma fails? What effect would a burst of neutrons have? Would
meltdown be possible?
"100 million C. At this temperature, the hydrogen nuclei fuse to produce helium, releasing neutrons and a huge
amount of energy. The plasma is so hot that a powerful magnetic field is needed to stop it from touching the
reactor's walls"
5. In the 50's the 'experts' ALL claimed fission reactors would produce clean, nearly free power; in fact they were
used to produce weapon grade plutonium as the political essential. Whilst fusion reactors cannot be used for such
nefarious purposes, we have reason to be suspicious of the claimed outcomes...
6. IF fusion is achieved commercially we still have the current scenario of centralised power generation, with high
distribution costs and losses.
7. With this in mind, it is likely that small decentralised thorium reactors may prove to be far cheaper, safer and
more practical. India and China are investing heavily in research. The principle was priven in the 60's but dropped
in favour of uranium fission, for the reason stated in 5.
8. AFAIK, fusion is NOT 100% clean since the linings of the containment chamber are irradiated and must be changed out As for solar and wind power, both have severe limitations, unable to produce 24/7 and subsidy dependent, for now. I'd
thought that wave/tidal was the way to go but apparently not, in spite of almost 100% availability and high energy density. So, I think the picture is not as rosy as you suggest.
First off, whether our energy economy at the end of this century is primarily fusion or thorium is a valid debate. Both are viable options but I agree with you that it will take a long time to perfect. That is why solar will be used as a bridge (or maybe it will be used permanently). The number of solar cells that can fit on a panel is doubling every year and cells that can retain and store solar for long periods of no sunlight (and also systems that can distribute energy from regions with more sunlight) are already in existence. Listen, I agree with you that climate change is the biggest problem for our civilization. That is why we must transition from our current energy economy onto a sustainable one. If we don't transition then we are in massive trouble. But we will change because that is the nature of our species. We built the foundations of our global energy infrastructure in the 18th and 19th centuries. We didn't know what the repercussions of burning fossils fuels were. We know now. There are entrenched industries that will fight the transition, but it won't matter. Once one country (my guess is Germany at the moment because they are world leaders in solar energy) transitions to a predominantly solar economy (probably the 2020s - because that is when solar will be able to produce more energy than oil for a lower coast (i.e., grid parity)) other countries will adopt the new system or fall behind (way behind). New economies and industries emerge in a natural selection type fashion. Because solar companies know that they could be making the types money that oil is currently making there is now extremely intense competition to produce the most efficient and least expensive solar grids that can power cities and vehicles. Check out Elon Musk's Solar City. By 2050 the nightmare that was the fossil fuel era will seem distant and archaic. Scientists that warn us of global warming are not wrong. They are right. However, the narratives they create for the future are functional in that they will motivate industry to change. Change will be slow (slower than we would all like) but it will come. Once it does come it will spread quickly (probably as quickly as the internet from 1995-2000). Again, if we don't then we die. But we aren't going to die. We are going to change. And we will be better for it.
I hope you are correct; my kids and theirs do, also. History shows that 'human nature' is so hard to change and we are so expert at fooling ourselves- 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' must be one of the worst aphorisms. Then there's religion, a form of insanity so infectious it beggars belief (pun intended). Islam particularly, anti-science and ossified; if that took over we are all doomed because after all, Allah knows best & we have no choice! Apology for my angry reaction- so many optimistic but unsubstantiated\ill informed opinions around that make for dangerous complacency. Yours IS well reasoned, however.
Thanks for your response. I am often attacked for having an exceptionally optimistic perspective on the future. But I do not try and describe a utopia. There are massive threats to human existence now (e.g., climate change), and there will be even bigger threats to human existence in the future (e.g., advanced A.I., 3D printed viruses, rogue nanotech, etc.). However, I believe that if you apply adaptation as an explanatory mechanism to the human species as superorganism you can theorize how these challenges and obstacles will be overcome (simply because the alternative is extinction). In nature, when an organism is confronted with significant and sudden environmental change they undergo punctuated equilibrium like change via natural selection (or if they don't they become extinct). With our species this actually happens. Except the selection pressures are on our institutions. We can also predict using Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns what technologies will exist in 2020, 2030, etc. Using both theories together we can hypothesize about what the most likely scenario state of our battle with climate change will be. For example, two very important technologies that have already been developed will be able to modify the chemical composition of the global atmosphere by 2030. Those include nanotech that can absorb CO2 and genetically modified bacteria programmed to live on large quantities of CO2. Both will allow us to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions. Technology evolves as biology does. Only x1million times faster. And the rate of technological change is accelerating. That is why I am not concerned about climate change. I do fear larger problems that we will face in the future. But hopefully if we start thinking about them now we will be able to put the necessary safe guards in to protect against those as well. As for your fear of Islam spreading... I would really not worry about that at all. All polls indicate that religious belief worldwide is declining. Consider the fact that by 2030 the entire world will actually be online all the time and most countries standard of living will be considerably higher. (there will also be Watson-like A.I. in every smart phone). With those technologies and situations I expect religion to collapse quite quickly. The institutions may remain for longer - but already the nature of belief in god has changed substantially over the past 100 years. In most of the developed world religion is a shell of its former self in terms of influence and authority. That will happen throughout the rest of the world as well.
Just an FYI that you've seem to have included your email address in your response. I'm not sure that was intentional.
Thanks, no it was not intended but no problem; hope I have not offended any homicidal loons :-)
"We are slowing down population growth because of education, gender equality, the rural-to-urban transition, and birth control." You forgot AIDS. And they are developing medicines for it. "And in order to ensure that the developing world's economic growth continues, we must ensure that we transition to a new energy economy and avoid major nation-state wars."
Ensuring economic growth quite probably ensures ecological footprint growth. So we will eat our natural reserves without having tens of billions of population. And why would civil wars be any better? The western world with modern arms probably would not take population bomb as their own problem. What does it matter then? Human suffering in developing world because of starvation. They are developing aids medicine, global warming is decreasing arable land area and so is erosion. And fertilizer prizes are probably going to rise.
1) I didn't discuss medicine and health extensively because that one of the reasons we are collectively living longer and healthier lives. It is not necessarily one of the drivers of slowing population growth. 2) In the past yes. In the future no. Don't forget we are just learning how to be a global species. We have only been one for a few decades (at most 1-2 centuries). That is not very much time and it takes a great deal of technological innovation for a species like ours to create a sustainable and well-managed global energy economy (not to mention a lot of fighting against the established energy economy). But the future energy economy will not expand our ecological footprint. It will be based on solar (and then nuclear fusion). Both types of power are unlimited and produce no negative effects for the Earth. Here are three talks by Michio Kaku about the future of energy. One is near future, one is about the future of nuclear fusion - the other is deep future. 3. I'm not sure what you are talking about re: civil wars. But any major wars would definitely alter the progress we are currently making of slowing population growth. However, I am very confident that the trends of declining war over the past 60+ years will continue. Check out this post if you want to know more. Of course there will still be war (and America is still perpetually at war - for how long I don't know). But major nation-state wars do not happen anymore. Those are the biggest threat to continued slowing of population growth because they would destroy many people's standard of living. Civil wars (if they happened in the BRIC) would also be bad - but if they just happened in one country it wouldn't be catastrophic for the overall global trend. 4. The line between the western world and the developing world is really no longer existent. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. Many developed countries are now non-western (e.g., Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc.). As we progress towards the 2020s, 2030s, and 2040s, many other non-western countries will reach developed status. Of course it will take a few decades for India and China to reach these levels because it takes that long to pull 1+ billion people out of poverty. As a result, the further we progress into this century the more our species will adopt a collective and community mindset towards the population problem. Many organizations are already taking it into their own hands to ensure that we collectively slow the rise of the global population. These organization are international, without allegiance to one culturally constructed area of the planet. The U.N., and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are great examples of these organization that are doing phenomenal work to eliminate infant mortality, reduce the spread of communicable disease in the developing world, provide greater access to female education, and develop cheap and easily affordable contraception. 5) We will be vertical farming by 2050 (in response to the arable land issue). This will also like by a urbanized business (increasing the rate of urbanization as rural living becomes functionless). Global warming is a major threat but a transition to a solar economy will start to fix this problem. We must meet the global warming problem or else we will threaten our own existence - so we will meet the problem eventually. Crises spur major adaptation - punctuated equilibrium like change. That is one of the reasons I'm so confident that a major energy transformation is going to happen before 2050. 6) Finally I didn't even have a chance to talk about how ubiquitous global internet and A.I. would probably accelerate the process of global female education and increase the rate of urbanization. Also, both of these phenomena will also likely make us more democratic and more peaceful - enabling us to continue raising standard of living world wide without any major war to get in our way.