Episode 5: 7 Billion People: Will Everyone Please Relax?
It's a huge number. But it's not what you think.
- You are very confident about the earth’s population leveling off and then falling. How can you prove this? After all, population is still growing.
- You claim that the UN’s predictions are reliable. How reliable have they historically been?
- Even if population growth is slowing down, a billion people every 15 years is still a lot of people. Isn’t this still a problem?
- Why has the global total fertility rate dropped so much?
You are very confident about the earth’s population leveling off and then falling. How can you prove this? After all, population is still growing.
Population is still technically growing, but according to the United Nation Population Division’s numbers, that growth is slowing dramatically.
The United Nations Population Division (UNPD) is the most reliable source of population statistics in the world, which is why we use their numbers for our videos. And, according to the UNPD, population growth will continue to slow down over the next few decades. In fact, if current trends persist, our growth will halt right around 8 billion by 2045. After that, our numbers will start to fall off, slowly at first, and then faster.
If you find this whole idea counterintuitive, don't worry! You're not alone. At first glance, it really does seem like population is skyrocketing. That’s because we're still adding a billion people every few decades . . . and a billion people is a lot of people. But the way we can tell that population is not ballooning out of control is precisely the fact that we’re only adding a billion people each time. And soon, we won’t even be adding that many.
Back to topYou claim that the UN’s predictions are reliable. How reliable have they historically been?
Again, it depends on which variant you use. In our research, we’ve looked at the UN’s predictions and how they have compared with real life--and in every case the “low variant” has been the most accurate. You can run the numbers yourself here
Even if population growth is slowing down, a billion people every 15 years is still a lot of people. Isn’t this still a problem?
It is a lot of people. And of course, greater numbers bring their own challenges and issues. But there isn't any convincing evidence to show that the size of our population is the cause of the world's most pressing issues, like war, famine, disease, and poverty.
Let's put it another way. Since we have more people, our wars are bigger. Our famines may affect more people, and more people will have diseases and be poor. But population growth didn't create these problems--they have have existed since people have existed.
In other words, we can't blame population for problems that have been around forever. The only difference is, since there are more of us now, these problems affect more people.
Why has the global total fertility rate dropped so much?
Scientists are still debating exactly why, but there's no doubt that it is happening. All over the world, birthrates have been dropping quickly, and for nearly 50 years now.
Many demographers think that it is because more and more people are urbanizing (moving into large cities). When families live out in the country on farms, it makes more economic sense to raise larger families, so that they have people to help them and care for them in their old age. It’s also true that cities tend to have better healthcare facilities, which reduce infant mortality. This in turn means that parents end up having fewer children, since more of their existing children are surviving to adulthood.
Demographic expert Philip Longman observes, in his book The Empty Cradle, “As more and more of the human race find itself living under urban conditions in which children no longer provide any economic benefit to their parents, but are rather costly impediments to material success, people who are well adapted to this new environment will tend not to reproduce themselves. And many others who are not so successful will imitate them.” (p.31, available here)
Everyone is on a different page here.
Population growth and total population are two completely different things. It is possible for the growth rate to slow down dramatically every year and the total population still grow. As long as the growth rate is above 0 and not negative then the population will still grow. What I got from the video was that the population is not ballooning out of control due to simple math. Why people immediately started talking about Bangladesh and water bottles is beyond me. I get their point but was not what the video was trying to show. I have not seen enough facts to show me that the population will actually decline but in the US I know it will slow down a lot because the baby boomers are getting old. So that boom of growth will be a boom in decline at some point especially since people are not having babies like they used to for what ever reason you want to believe. When my parents were my age they had three kids in high school. Only one of us has a kid now and the other two are waiting for the right time AKA enough money to have kids. I am sure if I lived on a farm and didn't believe on contraception and didn't have access to so much medical care like my grandparents, all 3 of us brothers would have a whole litter of kids by now. Hell, we didn't get married until we were 30. So that in itself leads me to believe that the population will reach some sort of maximum amount. Everything in life reaches a maximum. That is how nature works. Are their too many of any species on earth? Not an opinion. I mean has in the history of the world has something taken completely over? Not that I know of. I have only heard of species dying off. Nature evens things out, always.
Declining once 8 million
In this site you claim that overpopulation is a myth. This is because, acoording to you, the population stops growing rapidly and in fact it will decline once we reach 8 million. I wonder how you get this number and why you think this.
In your site you say your numbers are in according with UN predictions, however if you follow the link it clearly says that the world population will CONTINUE to grow to at least 10 billion by 2100 (after that it doesn't say). this is in controdiction with your claim stating the growht of people will decrease after 8 million, so please explain how you get this information and if there is any other evidence around it
How do we get this info?
Read above in our science behind the video:
"it depends on which variant you use. In our research, we’ve looked at the UN’s predictions and how they have compared with real life--and in every case the “low variant” has been the most accurate."
It is the low-variant which yields the 8 billion number, while the high variant suggests 10 billion. We went for the more accurate prediction.
This is not science
You say that the trend toward urbanization will lead to a decline in population. With an increase in standard of living they will also have increased access to contraception, an education about how to use, and an increased desire to use it. People will have sex no matter what, and unless they use contraception, they will have babies. This is not magic that happens when people move to cities--there are real reasons why they have fewer children. I wish you would mention this because you make it seem like urbanization automatically will cause population decline.
With that trend toward urbanization comes an increase in standard of living, resource consumption, and impact on the planet of those moving to the city. So in terms of resource consumption, each American today has the equivalent impact on the planet of 55 Bangladeshis. So that means the US population is the equivalent of 17 billion Bangladeshis in terms of impact on the planet. In other words, if we had a planet of 17 billion people who only consumed as much as the average Bangladeshi, they would have as much impact as the US population. If we all become urbanized, our populations might decline, but our impact on the planet will increase, so the decline in population will not matter. From these statistics we can see that it is the affluent (Americans as 5% of the world's population consuming 30% of the world's resources)who are overpopulated.
Another thing you seem to gloss over is the meaning of population growth rate decline. A negative population growth rate can only be achieved if the death rate surpasses the birth rate. Losing a total of a billion people every twenty years is a scary amount of death. Do you realize this? This number is not just 1 billion people dying every 20 years, it is the number of people being born in a 20 twenty year period (because in order for population to decline at all the deaths have to first offset the births) plus 1 billion dying in just 20 years. How will this happen without some catestrophic death event? It can't happen just from people not having as many kids. This is why overpopulation is a problem. Wake up! Your own statistics show it!
losing a billion a year
There were, as of 2008, 506 million people over the age of 65. It is not inconceivable that a few million of those will die off. With abortion numbering, annually, over a million in the US and possibly 13 million in China alone, it is possible that a billion humans can be eliminated that way. Sex-preference abortions eliminates the child bearers, so that takes care of future population. In fact, one abortion eliminates a male or female child and all its potential progeny. Thus the future is already depopulated.
The consequences of abortion: inability to subsequently get pregnant or to maintain a pregnancy; premature deaths of babies from premature births; breast cancer and suicide (particularly in China, which has the highest female suicide rate in the world) will wipe out a lot more people.
Estrogenic contraception has caused a lot of strokes, malignant hypertension, pulmonary emboli and breast cancer (it is listed by the WHO, along with asbestos and nicotine, as a Class 1 carcinogenic). The byproducts of this steroid, excreted into the world's water supply for five decades, is implicated in the increase of human prostate cancer. Progesterone containing contraceptives, have been shown to markedly increase HPV (and its potential for cervical cancer) in third world women, on whom it was, exploitively, first tested. It also has increased the numbers of women with HIV. Progesterone, also a steroid, changes the vaginal and cervical mucosa, making the user susceptible to local infections. It lowers immunity also, increasing the potential for disease to become systemic. In its most concentrated forms (Ella and RU486) progesterone has caused women to die from the fatal infection C. Sordelli.
It has been observed, for hundreds of years, that women who never have babies are at increased risk of breast cancer. Elective and mandatory sterilizations will open a woman up to this.
It is a sociopathic sisterhood and culture, that believes in 'Choice' without massive public education about the consequences of the choices made and without a nod in the direction of the third world sisters who are dying as a result of the eugenic mindset of the first world.
In reply
The point still holds that those in the city, given the different lifestyle, view having children differently. On a farm, for example, an extra hand is desirable. In a city, raising a child can come across as a huge expense, thus making the thought less desirable.
Can you offer some statistical support to your claims about Americans vs. Bangladeshis? (Also, perhaps it is the American diet that ought to change.)
People not having kids will indeed allow the deaths to offset the births. If children are not replacing their parents, the older generations, larger than the newer ones, cannot be replaced as they die. (Imagine an upside down pyramid. As each top layer is removed, the pyramid shrinks in size.)
Reply to the editor
Hello,
I'm reading the comments on here. I find that their questions apparently come from a lack of knowledge of mathematics and science. Someone who doesn't understand a basic exponential function and exponential growth, much less differential equation models whose solutions are often exponential functions, will have a hard time grasping the other concepts that are cause for population peaking, and then dropping over time instead of continuing to rise, unending. People think linearly because nonlinear is non-intuitive. How can you put it into layman terms? I don't know. I think you've done a good job of explaining it, but I am also an electronics engineer with B.Sc., M.Sc. degrees and a Ph.D. candidate in Control Systems Theory and Design. Given the content of that subject, I suppose it's simple as to why I can see it. I'm not sure Americans also understand that the growth of people who are reaching retirement age is growing exponentially while the workforce is shrinking or unable to keep up. We have to pay for all those folk's social security, medicare, etc. How will they like their check taxed 95% to pay for these retiring baby-boomers? Unfortunately, it is impossible as you well know. If folks want to have their "entitlements" when they get old n' grey, they better start having 2.1 kids! (worse yet, economic collapse is guaranteed due to not replacing ourselves at a minimum and the socialist system we've created). Too bad people are not forced to study more mathematics and hardcore science, real science, in our schools. IMHO they just want a monthly check, a free phone, and a video game console - sorry, I digress. Well, if I can think of some way to better explain to help your mission, I surely will, because it is most unfortunate we are living in a culture of death where elitists want to get rid of us because we are using THEIR resources on THEIR planet. Perhaps a lesson in euginics would be useful. You've explained Malthusian philosophy to some extent, and Ehrlich's scare tactics, but maybe they need to know just how much the "elite" hates them for breathing! (hints for the folks with questions: look up Bill Gates/Vaccines/Population control, Ted Turner/Population Control, Oprah Winfrey - hey - if they have a billion dollars, then they are riding the Euginics Express, and promoting a culture of death!
Hokey dokey, have a great week!
Mr. Patterson
This is science?
Why don't you tell us how population will eventually decline slowly at first, then faster? How will that happen unless people stop having children entirely--something unlikely to happen--or reach the carrying capacity of the earth, run out of resources and food because they've destroyed the planet through consumption and overpopulation, or just kill each other through war. Another possibility is a pandemic disease. Something has to change in order for population to decline rapidly, and this is why we say we are overpopulated and need to stop having children and consuming so much. We would rather get to the point of population decline without destroying our planet, having a massive destructive war, or through a pandemic. I suppose we could be just like you and not worry about it, and then we will all suffer horrible consequences. Or maybe you think this decline is just going to magically happen without humans changing anything about the way we live or without any kind of change in resource availability. If you give mice food, they will continue to reproduce infinitely. Humans are no different.
Population vs. consumption style
I will skip the mathematics of diminishing returns and go right to the point of consumption. You are correct in pointing out consumption. Food consumption is not the problem. I am affiliated with the Surfrider Foundation, which focuses on actively picking up litter and educating the public about responsible use. The plastic and polystyrene debris that has accumulated over the last 40 years alone has reached a point that no matter what part of the ocean you go to, or what beach you walk along, you will find plastic and or Styrofoam pellets. That is a separate issue to the number of people on the planet and getting food to consumers. Food does not require plastic packaging. The rising ocean waters can be desalinated to produce water for agriculture, industry, and entertainment. Polluted water can be filtered to consume. The sad fact that this page is dedicated to is that large investors and governments are not building sustainable infrastructure, such as wave generators and windmills at sea to power desalinization plants. I don't know why the US isn't on board with this. Here is a link that is quite informative on how to help fix the resource demand. If you volunteer and pick up the mess that our recent ancestors (and us) made, that will help too. We can't be complacent, but we would be suicidal to give up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination
Problem with overpopulayion is different..
Most ppl don't understand problem with overpopulation. It's not mainly problem with growing population. It's problem with limited earth resources. Already if every single person would live american lifestyle. Earth should be 4 times bigger than it is now. And it's already huge problem with 7 bilion ppl. What will happen when it will be 9 or 10? If developing and underdeveloped countries will continoue to increase their consumption what is their right, like americans do. Nowadays 75% world population comes from poor regions. And they want live better like rest of western world. Mother Earth simlpy can't handle this. It's not s-f. It's well known fact. American lifestyle and developing urge will literally kill our planet. We dont have much time to solve this problem. Otherwise our children will live in world of war for water, oil, and food. Best example is Rwanda Genocide. When neighbors were killing each other for their land, home or place to work. Im not pessimistic person, rather realistic. This movie shows only numbers. Nothing more nothing less. It don't shows real problem with overpopulation.
Regarding the Environment
Could we get some links
I love the info that you are saying here on your website but could you guys get me more urls that could point specifically to the numbers? The UN Pop site is clunky and hard to use at least, and some basic links to prove the stuff in the vid would be nice. OR forward me to a better site. Thank you!
So we´ll reach 8 billion and then fall.........
But if overpopulation is a myth, why stopping at 8 billion? Couldn´t the Earth carry say 15 billion? Or more? Whenever if starts to fall, that´s the sign overpopulation was a problem...
It is not "the only problem", and won´t solve all the other problems, but if we don´t solve overpopulation, nature will........
Answer
It depends. If the population started to decline because we had too many people and we sparked a worldwide famine, then yes, overpopulation would be the problem.
But the main problem is that people are using contraception too much and are no longer reproducing enough to replace themselves. Our low birth rate is what is causing this.
This makes sense to me but,
This makes sense to me but, do you really believe that we are going to loose so much of our futures population.
And what do you think will happen to make every just stop their population growth.
Population Shrinking
Population growth has, in a sense, already stopped in many countries. Their birth rates are below replacement level. A population cannot truly grow if it is under-producing. Population numbers appear to be growing because people are living longer. This hides the fact that they are not replacing themselves. As each older generation dies, the population will decline because the following generations keep shrinking.
Amazing
For a long time the UN has said we will peak at 9 billion. Well, at first it was 11 billion, but with the current birth dearth crisis, it appears it will never see that day. 8 billion is a lot, but considering that the population is also aging at an unprecendented rate, we will lose a greater portion of our population. That is the only "overpopulation" in this case - too many old, not enough young. Perhaps we will not even reach 8 billion with these issues.
But when I hear of students and countless others quote that overpopulation is killing our planet, it sickens me. Their fear and hysteria has provided the funding for environmental groups and has shown the true hypocrisy of the UN. To me, the only useful thing about the UN is their population statistics, and even that is quickly changing.
Thank you for standing up against environmentalism and this myth of overpopulation. For great justice.
What?
And what is wrong with environmentalism? Ok perhaps it is okay that we are 7 billion people in the earth, but we are really ignorant and we are destroying the planet, every day we take down 10 million trees each day, we fill the oceans with plastic bottles!
There is an encyclopedia
There is an encyclopedia collections worth of examples of humans' negative impact on the earth's other living things. Species extinctions, polution, scientifically proven human caused global warming. Look at the last 2 rhinocerouses of a certain species, slaughtered for their horns, for use as an aphrodisiac. As if people need to have more sex. the last 2 giant soft shelled turtles in china under armed guard at far removed zoos. Our thorough spread of every possible invasive species to unevolved ecosystems that can't handle them. Smog over every major city. Even our outer space is cluttered with our trash. Cities fighting with states over ground and river water usage. The Rio Grande no longer reaches the ocean because it is sucked up by people to grow crops in deserts that evaporate away. Overpopulation is real and it is coming whether we acknowledge it or not. Human nature will not allow a planned, eased, peaceful solution to this problem. It will be war, disease, and most of all, lack of food and clean water that will cull this herd of selfish organisms. But before this happens all of mother nature will be raped and murdered. The agent Smith of the Matrix movies had it right. We are a virus that spreads and overwhelms it's host. The earth without life is just a big rock. Every living thing on it took the hisory of the solar system to create, every extinction caused by human beings ends that line of that process forever.
But still ... is it the overpopulation?
I still think that the main question is not wether there is too much of us. Questions that we really should be asking is ... How are we managing our resources and what kind of living standards do we want on this planet. I believe there is enough food, water, discovered and undiscovered energy resources and I'm not talking about new sources of oil to sustain much more of us. The only problem that we really have is our infantile, egotistic and frightened view of life. For example. Do you really think, that we don't have enough food available to feed every and each one on this planet? But do we really want to? If we really would want to do it, don't you think we could find the way? As long as we believe that there is not enough, as long as there are people who profit from those fears, as long as there are those who can manipulate availability of the resources, we WILL have problems with overpopulation. Overpopulation of those who try to control, those who try to manipulate, those who create wars, stock crashes, debt, famine, misery, suffering ... Planet is fine. Planet can and will survive without us. The question we have to ask ourselves is: Do we want to live nicely and comfortably on this planet, or do we want something else. I don't believe that there is a global solution to our problems. Solution is individual and individual only. When enough individuals starts demanding change, change will happen.