blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|7067
The world's population will reach 7 billion in 2012, even as the global community struggles to satisfy its appetite for natural resources, according to a new government projection.

There are 6.7 billion people in the world today. The United States ranks third, with 304 million, behind China and India, according to projections released Thursday by the Census Bureau.

The world's population surpassed 6 billion in 1999, meaning it will take only 13 years to add a billion people.By comparison, the number of people didn't reach 1 billion until 1800, said Carl Haub, a demographer at the Population Reference Bureau. It didn't reach 2 billion until 130 years later.

The global population is growing by about 1.2 percent per year. The Census Bureau projects the growth rate will decline to 0.5 percent by 2050.

By then, India will have surpassed China as the most populous country.

The Census Bureau updates projections each year on a variety of global demographic trends, including fertility and mortality rates and life expectancy. U.S. life expectancy has surpassed 78 years for the first time, the National Center for Health Statistics announced last week.

The new Census report comes amid record high oil and gasoline prices, fueled in part by growing demand from expanding economies in China and India.

There is no consensus on how many people the Earth can sustain, said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. He said it depends on how well people manage the Earth's resources.

There are countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East where the average woman has more than six children in her lifetime. In Mali and Niger, two African nations, women average more than seven children.(DAMN!)

In the U.S., women have an average of about two children, which essentially replaces the population. Much of the U.S. population growth comes from immigration.

http://www.bnd.com/living/health/story/374701.html
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6977
Sweet. War. War. War. War. War!
HurricaИe
Banned
+877|6383|Washington DC

CameronPoe wrote:

Sweet. War. War. War. War. War!
Just drop a few nukes.
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|7067

CameronPoe wrote:

Sweet. War. War. War. War. War!
hehhe war war war wonder how things are gonna turn out for real lolz
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|7067

HurricaИe wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Sweet. War. War. War. War. War!
Just drop a few nukes.
well other countries have nukes 2 lolz so then we would all die humans would destroy everything
Stimey
­
+786|6542|Ontario | Canada

blademaster wrote:

HurricaИe wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Sweet. War. War. War. War. War!
Just drop a few nukes.
well other countries have nukes 2 lolz so then we would all die humans would destroy everything
Mutually Assured Destruction tbh.
Need alternate food & fuel sources nao pl0x
­
­
­
­
­
­
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7188|UK

CameronPoe wrote:

Sweet. War. War. War. War. War!
Its about time tbh.
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6779|CA, USA
i'm sure that with all these people crowded together that another pandemic like the one in 1918 could occur again.  millions died as a result of that influenza outbreak.  it would even be easier now since it's much simpler and faster to travel in/out of the country with planes and so on.  True, we have better tech and procedures for quarantining people but in developing nations this is not the case.

nature has a way of weeding out the population when it gets too large to sustain itself.  personally i think we have way too many people in the world as it is.  the world cannot continue to sustain such unchecked growth without consequences.
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6869|Chicago, IL
lol, nature will correct our population for us...

fortunately for me, I live in an area with relatively low population density, and good food and water availiability, I can (hopefully) survive the "correction" process

the problem here is developing countries where the fertility rate is hovering at 6, rather than 2-3, which is the replacement rate, and, ideally, we should fix the number of children at 3, which would gradually decrease the population over time without a catastrophic die off or aging of the population.
argo4
Stand and Deliver
+86|6355|United States

Vilham wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Sweet. War. War. War. War. War!
Its about time tbh.
I don't know what weapons the next war will be fought with, but world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein


Yeah, sux2bus
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6960|Long Island, New York
Let's split off the human race

Half on Mars..

Almost half on Earth..

New Orleans on Mercury.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6827|North Carolina

S.Lythberg wrote:

lol, nature will correct our population for us...

fortunately for me, I live in an area with relatively low population density, and good food and water availiability, I can (hopefully) survive the "correction" process

the problem here is developing countries where the fertility rate is hovering at 6, rather than 2-3, which is the replacement rate, and, ideally, we should fix the number of children at 3, which would gradually decrease the population over time without a catastrophic die off or aging of the population.
For the most part, what we're likely to see soon is even further starvation and warfare in Africa.  As for the rest of us, I think we're ok...  Although Indonesia is pretty damn crowded already.
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6992|Portland, OR, USA

Turquoise wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

lol, nature will correct our population for us...

fortunately for me, I live in an area with relatively low population density, and good food and water availiability, I can (hopefully) survive the "correction" process

the problem here is developing countries where the fertility rate is hovering at 6, rather than 2-3, which is the replacement rate, and, ideally, we should fix the number of children at 3, which would gradually decrease the population over time without a catastrophic die off or aging of the population.
For the most part, what we're likely to see soon is even further starvation and warfare in Africa.  As for the rest of us, I think we're ok...  Although Indonesia is pretty damn crowded already.
By 2050 the world population is going to be at around 12 billion (if birth rates stay constant).

We all won't be fine.  Even if we find a massive bed of oil, that's more people than we can support; and if we don't find an feasible alternative or enough oil to feed a growing demand, try to sustain New York City or Los Angeles without trucks to transport food.

The current fertility rate in America is 2.06 children per couple, so it's barely growing; much of our growth comes from immigration.  Places like Japan and France I believe are now in the "Post-Industrial" stage of national growth, where many different factors (careers namely), result in negative growth.  While America will probably keep growing into our post-industrial era, much of the growth seen in the world will come from nations that are transitioning from the hunter-gatherer like society stage into the industrial stage because 8 or 9 kids per couple are needed to sustain a population in a society with no modern medicine.  However, when these countries enter the industrial stage and they have access to better health care more people survive, and there's a lag time as that society gets out of the 'breed like rabbits' mindset.

I will be in awe if nothing is done to stop our population from doubling again, and even more amazed if we survive that long.  Overpopulation is a terrifying prospect that seems to be a taboo topic in both the media and politics -- and it's the source of so many of the world's problems already.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7097|Canberra, AUS
Within two decades the rate of pop growth will be falling - quite significantly in some areas.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Volatile
Member
+252|7126|Sextupling in Empire

It'll be ok because it's God's plan, right? LOL.

I support mass sterilizations in heavily overpopulated areas. It's more humane than letting people starve to death once food shortages start to occur, IMO.
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|7103|Disaster Free Zone

HurricaИe wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Sweet. War. War. War. War. War!
Just drop a few nukes.
How many people were killed in WWII?
According to this
About 50 million. Which is a drop in the ocean compared to the worlds total population. And the 2 nukes only killed about 320,000. Not to mention after the war the explosion in births (The baby boomer Generation) saw an actual net increase in population from the bloodiest war ever.

War is no solution to population problems.
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6915|N. Ireland
^ The idea was that if one side used nuclear warheads against the other, the other would do the same. It's this that would have destroyed the earth's population. Well, all except for Iceland maybe

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard