JoyofBricks8 wrote:
So today we have more children than ever before.
They have less chance of dying before sexual maturity than ever before.
Yet the UN is happy to estimate that in 30 years time there will be fewer kids, because for the last few years they reckon less kids have issued because of a recent trend?
And I am supposed to find that reassuring?
What if that trend is just a fad?
I am sorry. I just can’t see a wealthier world with fewer resource constraints on large families not ultimately having large families. We see the same population explosions across all species when resource constraints are removed. The classic example is yeast in a brewers vat, or deer in the absence of wolves.
My expectation is humans are not smarter than yeast, at least when it comes to controlling their reproductive urges.
The UN only promotes such reassuring myths because of fear of the backlash against entrenched interests that the actual probable trend result of a 15 billion plus population of 2100 will create.
Happily, the resulting dystopia will be neither of our problems by then: Party on, let the good times roll. Buy land. They are not making any more of it. Though if you believe St Greta, it will probably be a hundred metres underwater or more.
You seem to be conflating current figures with speculation. You challenged us to supply data refuting your statement that population is growing exponentially/geometrically. You have been given that data. The best curve fit to the historical population trend is probably a logistic ('S' shape) which is typical for populations of living organisms.
The really big question is whether the population reaches a sustainable level or collapses and that depends on whether you believe we will either reach or go beyond the carrying capacity of the planet. Or, indeed, have already exceeded it. The Club of Rome did a lot of these simulations back in the 70's and to me it looks as if we are stuck on the standard run that implies collapse some time this century. There are a lot of resources that are being used up more rapidly than they are being replenished such as fresh water aquifers, topsoil and, of course, fossil fuels. Meanwhile the effluent (pollution) from human activities continues to rise, headlined by greenhouse gas emissions and plastics. Never mind that we are now living through a 6th mass extinction. You do wonder what a dolphin might think of the human plague.
It's not just about population either. There are individual, corporate and government mandates for growth and this is much closer to an exponential given targets are usually a constant rate of around 3%. IMO the only way to limit or reverse the anthropomorphic effect on the planet is to reduce consumption. Substitution isn't going to cut it. But reduction in consumption has massive head-winds. It goes against both human greed and the mountain of debt that has been accumulated world-wide. Any meaningful, Global, reduction in consumption would lead to a Global depression and no Government is going to go there. Hence the talk of carbon neutral, electric cars for petrol ones. All the while we replace things at a faster and faster rate.
I could go on but I think you get the picture. All IMO of course.
BoE
, still the same.