US Population

[FoxNewsSucks]

I was in a grocery store today with one of those "Remember When" card racks. I always look at them, for interesting historic info.

The thing that struck me today was the card from 1962. US population today is over 330 million. 60 years ago it was less than half that. Probably similar for the rest of the world.

There are just too damn many people. The world is overpopulated. I haven't got an answer for the problem, but this planet can only sustain a limited number of people and I would guess that number is smaller than the current population.

[newswatcher22]

1. Overpopulation Myth

Lets be careful in pursuing this path. It eventually leads to Eugenics if we are not careful.

The debate becomes, "Okay you will like to cut down global population, where would you like to start?".

At the foundation of this line of thought is a Malthusian view of resources. That has not been sufficiently established. None other thant JFK commissioned a study that demonstrated there were enough resources for the whole planet to live comfortably "many times over". Do you know what stops it? Human greed and desire by few to accumulate too much.

Lets start by establishing the true capacity of the planet. A draconian step like culling the herd is too extreme and needs science behind it.

[FoxNewsSucks]

2. I'm not suggesting herd culling

And at the time Kennedy said that, remember the population was half today's.

Greed is no doubt a problem with this and other issues.

But the planet now is overcrowded, and republicons want to criminalize birth control. I think that's a problem.

[newswatcher22]

3. I hear ya

You sound genuine and truthfully we will have to seriously consider the issue of population once studies are updated.

Just an fyi that there are other actors at the table, some who may not have very nice thoughts regarding overpopulation and strategies to mitigate it.

For instance there is a quote by Prince Williams floating around the internet regarding overpopulation by certain people. His unpleasant welcome in the Caribbean is one of the results of such statements.

[raccoon]

17. Can you give us a link? Nt

[newswatcher22]

20. See link

https://www.news24.com/channel/gossip/royal-news/critics-slam-prince-william-over-africa-population-growth-remarks-20211125-2

[brush]

13. I don't know about that. There are huge areas with hardly any people...

like all the red states out west with vastly more acreage than voters.

[Caliman73]

38. The problem isn't space. It is resources.

Many scientists put the earth's carrying capacity at between 9 and 10 billion people. That is regarding space, access to water and food.

California is mostly desert and mountain with some very fertile areas in the state, however, the population we have here is only sustained through extensive irrigation and taking water from up north and from the Colorado river, which tends to ruffle feathers in Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. There's more to life on the planet than food for humans, though

We can't convert all the land possible to food production. Most studies have put it under 8 billion:



https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/how-many-people-can-earth-actually-support

https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/geas_jun_12_carrying_capacity.pdf

The WWF puts it distinctly under 8 billion - we're using 1.7 times the sustainable resource rate:

Each year, Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when humanity has used all the biological resources that Earth regenerates during the entire year. Humanity currently uses 74% more than what the planet’s ecosystems can regenerate—or ‘1.7 Earths’. From Earth Overshoot Day until the end of the year, humanity operates on ecological deficit spending. According to the National Footprint & Biocapacity Accounts (NFA) based on UN datasets, this spending is currently some of the largest since the world entered into ecological overshoot in the early 1970s.

https://wwfcee.org/news/earth-overshoot-day-creeps-back-to-july-29

[Hekate]

56. It is to laugh. "Out West" is in perpetual drought now.

[FoxNewsSucks]

62. Those sparsely-populated areas are empty for a reason,

they're not suitable for agriculture, and are not very hospitable.

There's a lot of room in the Sahara, too, but that doesn't mean a billion more people can or should live in it

[A HERETIC I AM]

15. Every single human could fit in the land area

Equivalent to Texas and Oklahoma and have around 1200 square feet each, leaving the entirety of the rest of the planet for farming and park lands.

I did that math using a population of 8 billion.

There aren’t too many people, we just have inefficient use of resources and waste control.

And as stated, a relatively small number of humans disproportionately control enormous amounts of wealth and resources.

[Coventina]

21. The size of the human body is irrelevant.

It's how much arable land is required to support that body that matters.

We have more than maxed out the arable land on the earth and we're busily pushing out other species.

[uponit7771]

31. There is no proof that we have maxed out the *** OUTPUT *** of the arable land.

[Coventina]

37. That is true. But that won't happen until humans are willing to stop the barbaric

practice of eating animals.

Sadly, I don't see that happening any time soon.

[hunter]

41. Imagine how much land we could restore to something resembling a natural state...

... if we quit factory farm meat and dairy products, and fuel ethanol.

The largest biological wastelands in the U.S.A. are dedicated to growing feed for industrial scale meat and dairy production, and corn for fuel ethanol. None of these make the world a better place.

[Hekate]

57. I highly recommend John Brunner's 1968 novel Stand on Zanzibar

[wnylib]

40. I also remember that, at that time, many people

were saying that we were already overpopulated and could not sustain the population that we already had.

But 60 years later, we are still here.

[NickB79]

46. We've kicked off a mass extinction event in the past 60 years of human growth

Your argument falls pretty flat.

[wnylib]

48. Mass extinction event?

[NickB79]

53. Yes. It's been common knowledge in the scientific community for years

Driven by climate change and habitat loss, both from human overconsumption of natural resources.

https://www.jpost.com/science/article-692709

[Celerity]

11. Researchers Say Earth Is Headed for "Jaw-Dropping" Population Decline

"It's extraordinary, we'll have to reorganize societies."

https://futurism.com/global-birth-rates-falling-precipitiously?ref=thefuturist

People around the globe are having way fewer babies. By the year 2100, that might turn into a pretty big problem for humanity — rather than the relief one might expect. If they aren’t already, dozens of countries’ populations will be going into decline in this century, according to a new study published in the Lancet this week. 23 countries are expected to feel this effect intensify, with their populations dropping to half of what they are now by the year 2100.

The global population will peak at 9.7 billion around 2064, according to the new projection, and then drop off to 8.8 billion towards the end of the century. “That’s a pretty big thing; most of the world is transitioning into natural population decline,” Christopher Murray, co-author and researcher at the University of Washington, Seattle, told the BBC. “I think it’s incredibly hard to think this through and recognize how big a thing this is; it’s extraordinary, we’ll have to reorganize societies.”

The reality is that with more women receiving an education and entering the work force, combined with the wide availability of contraception, fertility rates are dropping, sometimes precipitously, around the world — a stark reversal of the baby boom following the Second World War. Countries including Spain, Portugal, and Thailand will have their populations more than halve by the end of the century — “jaw-dropping,” according to Murray.

But aren’t fewer humans better for a ravished world that’s rapidly being drained of its resources? The researchers suggest that there may be fewer babies being born, but any positive consequences for the environment would be offset by the challenges of a rapidly aging population. Much older populations “will create enormous social change,” Murray told the BBC. “Who pays tax in a massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly? Who looks after the elderly? Will people still be able to retire from work?” “We need a soft landing,” he added.

snip


Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study

https://tinyurl.com/ybadb2q7

snip

Findings

The global TFR in the reference scenario was forecasted to be 1·66 (95% UI 1·33–2·08) in 2100. 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.

The reference projections for the five largest countries in 2100 were

India (1·09 billion [0·72–1·71],

Nigeria (791 million [594–1056]),

China (732 million [456–1499]),

the USA (336 million [248–456]),

and Pakistan (248 million [151–427]).



By 2050, 151 countries were forecasted to have a TFR lower than the replacement level

183 were forecasted to have a TFR lower than replacement by 2100.

23 countries in the reference scenario, including Japan, Thailand, and Spain, were forecasted to have population declines greater than 50% from 2017 to 2100

China's population was forecasted to decline by 48·0% (−6·1 to 68·4) by 2100.

China was forecasted to become the largest economy by 2035 but in the reference scenario, the USA was forecasted to once again become the largest economy in 2098.

[newswatcher22]

22. Its possible but not necessarily likely

Can current production output and pattern of waste and hoarding support future population growth? No. Emphasis on current. But I believe in the ability of science to innovate solutions to forecasted scarcity.

Most predictions of overpopulation crisis make erroneous assumptions about the rate of development. See the 1970 studies on environmental pressures on human development on which most of our models are still based. Not only have we superseded the prediction of human development and resource use, but the terrible scenarios set to emerge by 2000 did not show up.

[Celerity]

24. Well, barring fatal injury and/or illness (knock on wood), I will definitely live to see

the 2064 peak pops date. I will still, at that time, be younger (67, turning 68 in very late summer) than a large chunk of posters in DU are now.

In theory, as the women on both sides of my genetic tree are quite long lived (well into their 90's for many, and a handful over 100) I shall perhaps see if the downsizing trend was accurate as well. If not personally reaching the year 2100 with my dance on this mortal coil, at least coming close enough to draw fairly accurate conclusions.

I do fear that global heating and/or nuclear war (perhaps the deadly double) have far too high of chances to end the entire quest for us all who are still around.

Time will tell.

[newswatcher22]

27. Oh you are lucky young

You will definitely live to see that day.

But lets keep hope alive for developments in cancer treatment, dementia by the 2040s and antiaging treatments by 2050. I could make it to say I told you so

[Celerity]

28. deal!

[NickB79]

47. So, in 2100 we'll have almost 1 billion MORE humans than today?

But that's considered a jaw-dropping population decline? 🤔

But to be honest, all those predictions are BS anyway. Climate change is going to hit so hard by 2050, we'll likely be at 5-6 billion and falling fast by 2100 from starvation, water shortages, poverty, war and disease.

[Duppers]

16. Or how about the simple PILL??! OR. ..

. .getting one's tubes tied after having two children. That's not so hard and I've known plenty of women who have done it, including my own mother who had three children in the first 4 years of her marriage.

Spent 6 weeks in China, 11 years ago. All women of childbearing age who had one child, had their tubes tied. Big deal, folks.

Overpopulation is an existential threat to all life on the planet.

We can ignore that fact at our own risk. And if you do not believe this, you need to read more.

It's not about being able to afford more children, it is about "can the planet afford more children?"


"Population is growing rapidly, far outpacing the ability of our planet to support it, given current practices. Overpopulation is associated with negative environmental and economic outcomes ranging from the impacts of over-farming, deforestation, and water pollution to eutrophication and global warming." Feb 5, 2021

Environmental Impacts of Overpopulation

https://www.thebalancesmb.com/how-overpopulation-impacts-the-environment-4172964

[empedocles]

18. TY

[newswatcher22]

23. Can the Planet afford?

Yes it can.
As much as we bask in our development, we do not consume 1/100 of 1% of current planetary resources. We are still barely digging beyond earths crust. We are not that prolific in environmental destruction. We are very wasteful however, and tend to be hoarders, competing for all available resources to lavish ourselves in it. Hence we are scared of too many people stealing "our stuff".

[SoonerPride]

35. Welcome to DU!

[hunter]

39. Eventually we can turn earth's entire biosphere into a big fusion powered blob of human protoplasm.

It'll be great!

.

.

.

[Hekate]

55. I think we have hit the true capacity of the planet & eugenics has nothing to do with my reply

Mother Nature is taking a hand.

[quakerboy]

71. It doesnt take eugenics

It takes female empowerment and easy access to contraception.

People will slow this down themselves given half a chance.

[Bayard]

4. And Nature said,

"Let's start a big never-ending plague. I will call it, Covid."

[newswatcher22]

5. That was man

Ooops... running away as fast as possible screaming "I am sorry DU, I am sorry DU".

Just couldnt resist that joke.

[Celerity]

12. except Covid is barely putting even a small, tiny, tiny dent in global population growth

https://www.worldometers.info/






The continent with by far the most explosive population growth is Africa.



Covid there:



If the US had the same deaths per million in pops rate as Africa, the US would only have had 60 thousand people die since the beginning of the pandemic, not over 1 million.

[panader0]

25. I read somewhere earlier that the US had it's first year of negative

population growth last year. Not sure if it's true.

[Celerity]

26. U.S. Population Grew 0.1% in 2021, Slowest Rate Since Founding of the Nation

COVID-19, Declining Birth Rates and International Migration Resulted in Historically Small Population Gains

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/12/us-population-grew-in-2021-slowest-rate-since-founding-of-the-nation.html

The U.S. population grew at a slower rate in 2021 than in any other year since the founding of the nation, based on historical decennial censuses and annual population estimates.

The U.S. Census Bureau Vintage 2021 Population Estimates released today show that population grew only 0.1% and that the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the slower growth the country has experienced in recent years.

The year 2021 is the first time since 1937 that the U.S. population grew by fewer than one million people, featuring the lowest numeric growth since at least 1900, when the Census Bureau began annual population estimates.

Apart from the last few years, when population growth slowed to historically low levels, the slowest rate of growth in the 20th century was from 1918-1919 amid the influenza pandemic and World War I.



snip

[JI7]

6. People with fewer or no kids are more likely to use more resources

focus on population ignores the problem. Population decreases with rise in standard of living which happens usually with female education and other opportunities .

Excluding the rare cases like the Duggars and other idiots . Most families with a lot of kids are from poor families and they use very little resources. They tend to not have vehicles and travel is mostly walking . They are mostly in their village . They don't buy a lot of plastic crap.

But when someone from the above example is able to get out of that situation and get a decent job they are suddenly able to afford a lot of crap .

[Sneederbunk]

7. 1962 US population: 186.5 million.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

8. There really are too many people.

Our planet cannot begin to support the nearly 8 billion people on this planet. And no, it's not eugenics to say that there are too many people.

I keep on wondering if Covid isn't the beginning of the culling of our species. In reality, this planet can at best support one billion people over the long term. Which means we need to reduce the population down to less than 15% of the current number.

This is NOT an overpopulation myth. Overpopulation is real. Too many people, not enough resources, it's real. I honestly think we are going to see a serious population crash at some point. Not sure when it might happen. Maybe next year, five years from now, twenty or fifty years from now, but it will happen eventually.

I have one son, no grandchildren, and while I wish I'd had grand kids, I've come to be grateful for not having them. I have no descendants who will suffer from what is going to happen.

[Ron Green]

9. I believe it was 1820 when earth's population reached a billion. It took

300,000 years.

200 years later it’s 8 times that, fueled by extracted organic matter from 160,000,000 years.

We appear to have screwed this up.

[FoxNewsSucks]

63. Worldwide population is increasing exponentially.

[Silent3]

10. The US population, if you subtract immigration, is shrinking.

That's not true going all the way back to 1962, of course, but has been true for a while now. Our birth rate is less than our death rate.

As for the world population, it's still growing, but at a slowing rate of growth. Of course we humans are already too big a strain on this planet as it is, so that fact that the population will probably level off (last I heard) around 10-11 billion doesn't provide a lot of reassurance.

Population growth is highest in poor countries, but people in wealthier countries are causing much more per-person negative environmental impact.

[Cheezoholic]

14. We're really close to solving this population issue right now, today n/t

[cinematicdiversions]

19. The United States is certainly not overpopulated.

A trip an hour from most major cities will prove that right away.

Plus the United States has a declining native population. (As does most of the developed world)

So I am not sure what the issue is in the US or what you are proposing we do about the excess population in the third world.

[FoxNewsSucks]

64. As I said, I don't have an answer.

I travel a lot, and rural areas have always been less crowded. In many areas, like the High Plains, or desert Southwest, it's because the land isn't fit to live on.

To me, it's hard to go through cities every day and not think they are far too congested and crowded.

[MineralMan]

29. Yes. In 1965, after reading about global population

and the issues continued population growth would cause across the planet, I decided not to reproduce. Now, I'm 76 years old, and have not fathered any children during my adult life. I have married two women, both of whom agreed with my decision.

While we're not starving here in the United States, there is starvation aplenty on our planet. Things are not getting better, and global climate change, which is directly connected to human population increase is going to make feeding the planet even more difficult.

We have failed to keep our global population within sustainable boundaries. I did what I could. An exercise in futility, it seems. I will not live to see the consequences, but neither will any children of mine suffer, since there are none of those.

What a pity. We were warned. We, as humans, paid no attention.

[Hamlette]

42. at last, someone who thinks like me on this strange thread

I'm shocked to read people call overpopulation a myth.

[MineralMan]

43. I suggest people go and visit some third-world country that is

experiencing drought conditions or a civil war of some kind.

Famine and starvation are far from unknown on this planet, but we don't hear about it all that much. It always happens "over there."

Clearly, we are not able to provide for all of the people on the planet. Such a thing might be possible, but it is not happening.

Even in our country, we have people going hungry every day. We don't like to think about it, and rarely actually do much about it. People may not be starving to death, but lots of people do not get adequate nutrition.

All one has to do is look at the population curve over time. It is still going up. It is not going down, on a global basis. Global population is still increasing steadily, and with it increasing numbers of people suffering from inadequate food.

I have never regretted my decision not to add to the population. Never.

[Hamlette]

44. agree, travel seems to sharpen the focus

I'm about your age (I think, I'm 71) and my parents were proponents of small families due to over population. I had one child and have never regretted not having more.

I have long forgotten the numbers but once attended a presentation on what would have happened to China if they had not adopted the one child rule. It was scary stuff.

Some of the posts on this thread seem to assume population control means killing minorities. How bizarre. Trolls?

[Hekate]

54. When I read The Population Bomb et al. I immediately revised my planned future family to two...

Same era. See my post #52 below.

Yes, we were warned. My grandsons will live with the consequences.

[MineralMan]

58. Yes. I just couldn't.

No regrets.

[Hekate]

59. Understood, completely

[Scar Tissue]

70. In America, your grandkids will live with the consequences of the opposite.

The biggest potential economic crisis for the US is a scenario where population growth, either through immigration or birth, stagnate significantly. If that happens, in 40+ years when this generation is moving toward retirement, there won't be a sufficient workforce to handle the load and the economy is going to shrink significantly, putting your grandkids in an awful economic picture where there isn't a large enough population to supplement the workforce leaving + all the social programs tied to taxes.

It's a big reason Japan's economy has struggled this century and likely a major issue facing China and why they rolled back the one kid policy.

The problem with overpopulation isn't with you. Or your family. Or the United States. It's undeveloped nations that can't sustain the growth.

The US needs to grow to survive. If our population starts to shrink, your grandkids are going to live in a US economy decimated by it. Just look at how hard some states have it due to loss of population over the last 50 years and now imagine that at a national level.

If I were you, I'd be may more worried about the US' population declining and the impact that will have on your grandkids than overpopulation.

[Kaleva]

60. The US has a glut of food

Farmers are paid not to plant and there are price supports for milk as supply is much greater then demand. I wonder how many tons of food grocery stores across the country toss out that is past sell by date or no longer fresh?

It's more of a distribution problem then a supply problem.

A vigouours push early on for nuclear power and renewable energy world wide could have prevented climate change. It's not the number of people on this earth that caused climate change. It's the preferred methods of power generation that did it. The US, with a fraction of the world's population, is responsible for a high percentage of the green house gases emitted over the past 100 years plus.

IMHO, environmentalists, who fought hard against nuclear power, have some of the blame for what we are facing today.

[MineralMan]

61. So? My decision was made based on broader concerns.

[Kaleva]

66. A decision you say that may have been futile

It's possible that you could have made a positive impact by having children. You would have taught them to be progreesives, to be good stewards of the land and to fight oppression and fight for justice.

Your fight will end when you pass. It could have continued with children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

I'm not trying to imply it suggest you have regrets for not having children. It was your decision to make and you probably feel happy with it. As for me, my stepchildren and grandkids provide me with hope for future generations .

[MineralMan]

67. Again, so?

My life. My decision. I don't believe I asked for analysis from you or anyone else.

[Kaleva]

68. You made a comment on a discussion board so you ought to expect feedback

[MineralMan]

69. Yes. I got some, too.

I replied to some of that feedback, like yours.

[FoxNewsSucks]

65. Couldn't agree more.

I never had kids either. At first it was the somewhat self-centered reason of seeing my school friends who had "accidents" pay so much in child support, diapers, clothing, and everything that makes kids expensive. Then, since the 80's when I realized the implications of overpopulation and the damage humanity does to the planet, I also realized I could never bring a child into the kind of world being shaped.

It's only gotten worse since then. I don't see how anyone in good conscience could birth a child today, given politics and the environment.

[albacore]

30. The world... including the US...

need not take any steps to limit population.
Mom Nature will do it.
Eventually.
It won't be pretty.
It never is when a species overbreeds its range and resources.

[maxsolomon]

32. The Earth will self-correct.

Once the fossil fuel runs out.

[hunter]

33. Without high density energy sources half of us would die.

"Renewable" energy can't fix that.

On average, half the nitrogen in a human body is derived from fossil fuels, mostly natural gas.

Our use of fossil fuels has allowed for the exponential growth of the human population.

Unfortunately that party will soon end as global warming makes many regions uninhabitable, especially as the oceans rise and farmland becomes unusable. In some places temperature and humidity will be so high that people will be unable to survive without air conditioning. In these places ordinary power failures will kill thousands of people. We are already experiencing these sorts of tragedies in some places, but the scale of these disasters will increase exponentially.

We need to ban fossil fuels now.

As documented over the years here on DU, I used to oppose nuclear power not because I considered it especially dangerous, but because I thought it would remove certain limits to economic growth and thus increase the rate of environmental destruction. I was also optimistic that "peak oil" was a real thing. Now I know there is enough natural gas in the ground to destroy the natural environment as we know it.

I don't look at the population of any single nation. There is only one earth and one human population.

We can achieve a sustainable human population by the political and economic empowerment of women, realistic sex education for all, and freely available birth control.

I'm an unabashed socialist. Every human, by birthright, deserves safe comfortable shelter, clean tap water, healthy food, indoor plumbing, and modern sewage treatment plants.

We have the technology to accomplish all these things. The only thing standing in our way is various disgusting political and religious ideologies.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. Renewable energy can be used to fix nitrogen

Currently, the cheapest method of producing the hydrogen needed to react with atmospheric nitrogen to form ammonia is by stripping it from the methane in natural gas. But you can also produce the hydrogen from electrolysis of water. It just costs more.

[Spider Jerusalem]

34. Total human population of earth has nearly tripled since 1960

from 3 billion to almost 8 billion.

[roamer65]

36. Given the human species propensity for self destruction...

overpopulation won’t be a problem much longer.

[Brainfodder]

49. Making it harder for women to get abortions is a really great start for that one, eh?

Answer is catastrophe, and we are seeing one unfold?

[Hekate]

52. The pandemic doesn't seem to be giving up. At all. It's one of the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse...

…under the Aegis of Pestilence. Death — War — Famine — Pestilence.

There’s 8 billion of us. Global climate change seems to have hit the tipping point. There are already climate refugees, a lot of them subsistence farmers whose lands have turned to deserts. War notoriously creates famine, and Putin is devastating the Breadbasket of Europe — which, it turns out, feeds a lot of the rest of the world as well.

Death follows the others.

Anyway, charges of eugenics have nothing to do with this. The authoritarian Chinese, when ordered to have only one child, chose boys. The democratic Indians, when ultrasound machines made it to village clinics, did the same, only creating larger families. Of boys.

I sure as hell am not going to choose for others, though I had hoped rational education would have helped more than it did.

I think Mother Nature is taking a hand in reducing our numbers. Sorry I’m here to see it. I tried my best.