population

Image by Anne and Saturnino Miranda from Pixabay

The word “whiff” is used in baseball to describe when the batter swings and makes no contact with the pitched ball. The term presumably derives from the sound of hitting nothing but air.

This off-sequence post acts as a brief update that I wanted to present, without making a full-fledged blog post out of it (in hindsight, I may have failed). In the last two posts (here and here), I noted that recent rapid drops in child birth around the world could conceivably put us on track for an earlier population peak than previously anticipated—possibly as early as 2040 vs. the 2080–2090 timeframe.

That would be big news, and makes me continually ask myself: where is the disconnect? Is it possible that demography models are that wrong? I have discussed already (and will revisit in the next post) some of the potential blind spots for how this century develops. But here I look backwards to see if the recent drop in child births was itself a surprise to the demographers. If so, then it speaks to dynamics at play not captured in demography models, and that’s important.

I used the 2022 United Nations World Population Prospects (WPP) data (public) to build a list of countries that had the largest fractional declines in total fertility rate (TFR) from 2010 to 2019 (pre-COVID), and that also had projections in previous U.N. WPP products back to 2010. I show how (not) well the U.N. expectations match the actual story for these cases. I also throw in a few other countries of interest, including the three most populous ones.

The Top Drops

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Birth Dearth or Baby Boom?

May 18, 2024

Birth Dearth or Baby Boom?

A new debate on where global population may be headed

Writing in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week Greg Ip and Janet Adamy explored the possibility that the world’s population may peak and begin to fall far sooner than demographers have previously projected:

The world is at a startling demographic milestone. Sometime soon, the global fertility rate will drop below the point needed to keep population constant. It may have already happened.

Fertility is falling almost everywhere, for women across all levels of income, education and labor-force participation. The falling birthrates come with huge implications for the way people live, how economies grow and the standings of the world’s superpowers.

The United Nations, in its World Population Prospects 2022, projected in its medium variant scenario that global population would peak in the 2080s at about 10.4 billion people. The WSJ reports that figure represents a substantial drop from U.N. projections just five years earlier: “In 2017 the U.N. projected world population, then 7.6 billion, would keep climbing to 11.2 billion in 2100.”

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington in 2020 projected a global population in 2100 of about 1.5 billion less than the United Nations:

In the reference scenario, the global population was projected to peak in 2064 at 9.73 billion (8.84–10.9) people and decline to 8.79 billion (6·83–11·8) in 2100.

Both the U.N. and IHME foresee projected 2100 population to be less than demographers had previously projected. The trend in population projections for these organizations is down.

In contrast, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in a recent update to its Shared Socioeconomic Pathways scenarios increased its 2100 population projection by more than 1 billion people in its “middle of the road” scenario:

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

U.K. Population Collapse “Good for the Planet”, WEF Adviser Prof Sarah Harper Explains

August 21, 2023

U.K. Population Collapse “Good for the Planet”, WEF Adviser Prof Sarah Harper Explains

World Population Day Presentation: Dr. William Rees

January 29, 2023

World Population Day Presentation: Dr. William Rees

One Way Or Another, The Population Of The Globe Will Soon Be Much Smaller Than It Is Right Now

November 19, 2022

One Way Or Another, The Population Of The Globe Will Soon Be Much Smaller Than It Is Right Now

This week it is being reported that the human population of our planet has now reached 8 billion. We should all remember this moment, because soon the population of the globe will start getting much smaller. In “End Times”, I explain that we are moving into one of the most chaotic times in all of human history. There will be wars and rumors of wars, economic collapse, worldwide famines, horrifying pestilences and great natural disasters. Needless to say, in such a future the global population would fall very rapidly. But for purposes of this article, let’s imagine that none of those things will happen for the foreseeable future. For a moment, let’s imagine that conditions will be pretty much like they are today for decades to come. Unfortunately, even in such a wildly unrealistic scenario the human population of our planet would still plummet dramatically in the years ahead. In fact, if current trends continue there will be hardly anyone left by the end of this century no matter what happens.

I realize that I have just made some very outrageous statements, and a lot of you are probably wondering how I could have come to such wild conclusions.

So let me take this one step at a time.

According to the UN, the population of the world just hit 8 billion for the first time ever. The following comes from the official website of the United Nations…

The global population is projected to reach 8 billion on 15 November 2022, and India is projected to surpass China as the world’s most populous country in 2023, according to World Population Prospects 2022, released today on World Population Day.

…click on the above link to read the rest…

Economist Steve Keen says the planet cannot sustain 8 billion people | The Business | ABC News

November 15, 2022

Economist Steve Keen says the planet cannot sustain 8 billion people | The Business | ABC News

8 Billion Souls

November 14, 2022

8 Billion Souls

By the time you read this, the counter above will have probably hit 8 billion (1). Screenshot from World Population Clock

World population is projected to reach a new milestone — 8 billion people — tomorrow on November 15, 2022. According to United Nations Population Fund chief Natalia Kanem:

“Eight billion people, it is a momentous milestone for humanity, yet, I realize this moment might not be celebrated by all. Some express concerns that our world is overpopulated. I am here to say clearly that the sheer number of human lives is not a cause for fear.”

As usual, I beg to differ: the“sheer number of human lives” is a big issue — although far from being the only factor behind the woes of our civilization. Consumption, pollution load, technology use and inequality (among many other things) also play their roles. Since this is a major milestone in human history though, I felt the need to discuss the effect of population growth separated from these other topics, examining its upshot on our, and on future generations’ lives.

Being fully aware that this is a highly controversial topic, I suggest a simple thought experiment to somewhat distance ourselves from the emotions raised by this issue. Whenever I’m confronted with a difficult question like this (Is hitting 8 billion good or bad news? Are we headed in the right or wrong direction?) I always try to imagine two very extreme outcomes and see which one is better, and ultimately where should we — in my opinion — be headed. (Before you label the author an ‘ecofascist’ I’m not contemplating here on how to reduce living populations, but rather on long term trajectories and their sustainability.)

…click on the above link to read the rest…

The Great Reset: An Alternate Theory

July 22, 2022

The Great Reset: An Alternate Theory

In my last post I speculated that covid was a plan orchestrated by the heads of the important central banks to provide cover for printing a gazillion dollars to head off an imminent economic collapse, and to implement tools like digital currencies and lockdown mechanisms that will be useful for maintaining social order when money printing eventually fails and the economy collapses.

In that post I asked the key question:

What force is powerful enough to synchronize senior leaders in most countries to do the wrong thing on almost every covid action without assuming every leader is evil and/or stupid?

I stated that those of us paying attention and not listening to the official narrative know that nothing about covid makes sense.

Here is a brief summary of the covid facts and actions that do not make sense and that together suggest there is an objective other than public health in play:

no investigation or consequences for China and it’s Wuhan lab that engineered the virus
no investigation or consequences for the funders of the Wuhan lab work
Fauci kept in the most powerful healthcare position in the world, despite his involvement in funding the virus research and the subsequent coverup
no gain of function research policy changes to prevent a recurrence
no consequences for grossly incompetent WHO policies that encouraged global spread of the virus in the early days
suspiciously short and record time to develop a novel vaccine technology
all 4 vaccine manufacturers use the same (probably bad idea) mRNA code
suspicious vaccine patent history
probable fraudulent vaccine approval process and attempt to hide it for 75 years
insufficient testing to determine mRNA longevity and locations of activity in the body
willingness to rapidly deploy a novel insufficiently tested vaccine technology to billions at low risk from the disease including pregnant women

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Our population problem

October 27, 2021

Our population problem

Like Sir David Attenborough and many others, I recognise overpopulation as one of the most significant underlying causes of global problems today – along with our use of fossil fuels, overconsumption and our addiction to a perpetual growth economic model. However, when I mention this I am often countered with, “No, no. It’s not overpopulation; it’s overconsumption.”

In my experience, the person dropping this bomb usually walks away immediately, allowing no further discussion. Often there is an underlying assumption that population reduction must necessarily involve eugenics or other repugnant methods, but this is not so. And, for some, reducing population lands like an impossible task.

Certainly, reducing overpopulation is neither easy nor quick. But it is way easier than trying to reduce overconsumption. Advocates of overconsumption never address this point. And, in any case, far and away the most effective way of reducing one’s personal carbon footprint is to have fewer children.

It seems to me that overpopulation naysayers have a particularly anthropocentric view. In my experience, people who engage with nature generally recognise we are overpopulated. But overpopulation is still clear from a purely anthropocentric stance.

Eradicating deprivation

Many people support the goal of eradicating poverty, but very few give the matter further thought. Often, they do not even know how poverty is defined.

The World Bank defines three levels of poverty, reporting that in 2017: 689 million people lived in extreme poverty on less than $1.90 a day; 1.8 billion lived on less than $3.20 a day; and 43 per cent of global population lived on less than $5.50 a day. That is about 3.3 billion people. $5.50 a day translates to about US$2000 per annum. Can you imagine living on that?

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

These Are The ‘Good Old Days’

September 25, 2021

These Are The ‘Good Old Days’

At tipping points like now, the steps we take in the present determine our future

If you prefer to listen to the author read this article, Click Here.

Bill was 48 when his wife stunned him with a request for divorce. Right up until that moment, he’d thought everything was fine.

He’d been pouring all his energy into his work to provide a very comfortable life for his wife and 2 children. But she was unhappy and fell out of love while Bill wasn’t paying attention to matters at home. He’d taken her for granted and forgot to be present for the most important people in his life, and to be grateful in the moment.

After she was gone, Bill was filled with emptiness and regret. All he wanted was to get her back, but it was too late. The damage had been done. What he had before was now in the past.

This parable of Bill’s loss serves as a reminder to all of us that, with all that’s awry in the world, it’s all too easy for those of us who are paying attention to gripe about everything that’s going wrong.

Yes, there are many trends that are headed on the wrong trajectory. But this tumultuous period of history also affords each of us the fantastic opportunity to contribute positively to the new future that’s on the way.

Please take this article an invitation to be grateful for what you have, and to notice just how wonderful our current lifestyle truly is. It won’t remain this way, as I’ll expound on in a moment.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

The Solution to Climate Change is Here

May 19, 2021

The Solution to Climate Change is Here

The solution to climate change is here:

We have to stop raising beef and switch to insects, as directed by the UN
We have to reduce the population by 62%

Do this, and we solve all our problems — at least for the survivors. Since they can order vaccines and are completely immune if they result in genocide, they can achieve their goal rather quickly.

Is Resistance Really Futile?

February 9, 2021

Is Resistance Really Futile?

A number of people have asked, “Will this resistance be futile?” Europe has been crushed. Kristalina Georgieva and Christine Legarde are both board members of Schwab’s World Economic Forum. European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, was also a board member. Schwab has conquered Europe. He is destroying all non-green jobs and ensuring the EU will slip further down the list of world economic growth. This is why you see far more protests in Europe than in the states.

This is the real reason why you have the sudden militarization of the Biden Administration. There were clearly groups who pre-planned the assault on the Capitol. There are people who planted pipe bombs the night before who have conveniently never been identified. Was that really a false flag to make the event appear much more dramatic? Even AOC pretending her life was threatened is nonsense. Her office was not in the Capitol building. They did not storm her office building. All her claims that she feels threatened since Republicans even sit in Congress demonstrates she really wants a one-party rule – an environmental socialist dictatorship.

We are showing that unemployment will rise sharply, and the long-term downtrend stands at 7.6%. The Democrats are simply trying to push the Schwab agenda and are not being honest with the people. This is why Biden is acting like a dictator, issuing executive orders on climate without any opportunity for debate in Congress.

Moreover, all they try to do is claim how bad Trump was for the country. Yet, the unemployment rate under Trump was the lowest post-Great Depression era reaching 3.5%. The only time it was lower was World War II and the Vietnam War, where the unemployed were sent to war.

We show high volatility, and the unemployment rate will rise into 2022 because climate change comes first to these people. If people died from lack of heat, thereby reducing the world population, I am sure Bill Gates will be dancing the jig at the White House.

Do we have room for a billion Americans?

September 8, 2020

Do we have room for a billion Americans?

As I was reading Matthew Yglesias’ piece “The Case for Adding 672 Million More Americans,” the Soviet-era designation of Mother Heroine, initiated by Joseph Stalin in 1944, came to mind. Stalin and subsequent Soviet leaders gave Mother Heroine medals to mothers who bore and raised 10 or more children. Lesser honors were provided for mothers who bore and raised between five and nine children. There is some mention of additional financial assistance from the state to those with such large families, but I could not find much information on this.

For America’s version of Mother Heroines (and Heroes), Yglesias proposes “not just paid leave but financial assistance, preschool and after-care services, reasonable summer programming, and affordable college for all qualified student”—all in order to encourage larger families (which he claims Americans actually want).

Yglesias thinks we need to increase our population so that we will be able to compete with 1.4 billion Chinese. Whether you think competing with the Chinese is important or not, there is a problem with the hidden metaphor that Yglesias is using throughout his piece. He is imagining that the United States of America is like the family room in your home. Normally, you might have two or three members in the room at once, watching television, reading, or munching on snacks. But actually, you could fit 10 or maybe even 15 people in the room comfortably if you rearrange the furniture.

So, Yglesias thinks if we, so to speak, rearrange America’s furniture a bit—build more housing near major metropolitan areas, provide more assistance to families, encourage more legal immigration—we can reach 1 billion in population. “America should aspire to be the greatest nation on earth,” he tells us.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Today’s Energy Predicament – A Look at Some Charts

September 1, 2020

Today’s Energy Predicament – A Look at Some Charts

Today’s energy predicament is a strange situation that most modelers have never really considered. Let me explain some of the issues I see, using some charts.

[1] It is probably not possible to reduce current energy consumption by 80% or more without dramatically reducing population.

A glance at energy consumption per capita for a few countries suggests that cold countries tend to use a lot more energy per person than warm, wet countries.

Figure 1. Energy consumption per capita in 2019 in selected countries based on data from BP’s 2020 Statistical Review of World Energy.

This shouldn’t be a big surprise: Our predecessors in Africa didn’t need much energy. But as humans moved to colder areas, they needed extra warmth, and this required extra energy. The extra energy today is used to build sturdier homes and vehicles, to heat and operate those homes and vehicles, and to build the factories, roads and other structures needed to keep the whole operation going.

Saudi Arabia (not shown on Figure 1) is an example of a hot, dry country that uses a lot of energy. Its energy consumption per capita in 2019 (322 GJ per capita) was very close to that of Norway. It needs to keep its population cool, besides running its large oil operation.

If the entire world population could adopt the lifestyle of Bangladesh or India, we could indeed get our energy consumption down to a very low level. But this is difficult to do when the climate doesn’t cooperate. This means that if energy usage needs to fall dramatically, population will probably need to fall in areas where heating or air conditioning are essential for living.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

July 22, 2020

Population

“Neo-Malthusian promotion of family planning as the solution to hunger, conflict, and poverty has contributed to destructive population control approaches, that are targeted most often at poor, racialized women.”

While often thought of as a given reality, definitions of population are highly political. They are most often negatively associated with notions of “overpopulation” or “too many” Black, Brown and Indigenous people, supposedly overly fertile women and poor people, as well as some religious and ethnic groups. These ideas about population serve the purpose of classifying people and marking them as in need of intervention, defining whose life and ways of life are valuable or worthy of reproduction. In this line, it is important to question how population numbers are calculated and how they are used, as they help shape possible futures.

In relation to the environment and environmental conflict, population is often defined as a problem in neo-Malthusian terms. Neo-Malthusianism builds on British economist Thomas Malthus’s predictions of population-induced resource scarcity and violence. Neo-Malthusian promotion of family planning as the solution to hunger, conflict, and poverty has contributed to destructive population control approaches, that are targeted most often at poor, racialized women.

Population control was an international development policy from the 1960s to mid-1990s. Its policies have been based on top-down, coercive interventions. Such interventions are tied with imperial strategies for restraining local populations. Examples include China’s one-child policy, sterilization abuses in 1970s India and 1990s Peru, and the wide-scale dissemination of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods in the global South as a condition of international aid, like Norplant implants in Indonesia and elsewhere. Although the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development foregrounded sexual and reproductive health and rights and women’s empowerment and moved away from population control, it continues in practice. Population control is part of a troubled present, and cannot be relegated to history as dated international development policy.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Tag Archives: population

Content

Post categories

Economic Links

Energy/Resource Links

Environmental Links

Geopolitical Links

Liberty Links

News Links

Other Links

Survival Skills

Post Archives by Category

Eradicating deprivation

Post navigation

Latest Posts