[B0ycey]

2.5 with double the worlds population in 140 years. Based upon past trends, it is more likely to double within 50 years.

But the birth rate is reducing. The only thing that is increasing each year is life expectancy. When this levels out, because birth rates are reducing each year, the global population will start reducing. That is because death rates will surpass birth rates. It's simple maths and logic. Current UN projections says the global population will begin its decline when it reaches 11 billion. And when you consider global warming and the increasing risks of famine in Africa that will occur from this, it might not even reach that level (as Africa are the biggest offenders for global birth rates).

[One Degree]

But the birth rate is reducing. The only thing that is increasing each year is life expectancy. When this levels out, because birth rates are reducing each year, the global population will start reducing. That is because death rates will surpass birth rates. It's simple maths and logic. Current UN projections says the global population will begin its decline when it reaches 11 billion. And when you consider global warming and the increasing risks of famine in Africa that will occur from this, it might not even reach that level (as Africa are the biggest offenders for global birth rates).

Hopefully this will happen even though 11 billion people is going to be a nightmare especially since global warming is going to decimate much of Africa and other areas where population growth is a problem. The entire scenario is based upon two faulty assumptions. One, believing the UN is not a capitalist organization that wants increased population. Two, that declining birth rates are more than a passing fad. The world has never had a birth rate below 2. Why would a reasonable person want to depend solely upon this happening?
Passively sitting by believing in statistics does not sound like a great plan to me. Why not promote birth control and limit immigration just in case they are wrong or lying?

[B0ycey]

The entire scenario is based upon two faulty assumptions. One, believing the UN is not a capitalist organization that wants increased population.

Why do you have this notion? The UN does not have any influence in the finance sector. It is nothing more than a debating platform for world leaders. And most of the time, they don't agree.

Two, that declining birth rates are more than a passing fad. The world has never had a birth rate below 2. Why would a reasonable person want to depend solely upon this happening?

Technically, it doesn't need to reach 2. All that needs to happen is for global birth rates to be below death rates. Having a birth rate below 2 just means that this is more easily achievable and to occur quicker.

Passively sitting by believing in statistics does not sound like a great plan to me. Why not promote birth control and limit immigration just in case they are wrong or lying?

Well I agree. Birth control needs to be promoted. Especially in poor countries. Every women needs to have the right to have a family size that suits their lifestyle and wealth means.

As for migration, as I have told you before, just because America (or any other nation) prevents immigrants from entering their country, this doesn't stop the global population from increasing (or decreasing). Migrants don't leave the planet because they can't migrate. Whether a country needs migrants or not depends on employment figures or skilled Labour shortages in specific fields. And if you think preventing migrants will increase US GDP, think again. How big is US debt again?

[One Degree]

"B0ycey"]Why do you have this notion? The UN does not have any influence in the finance sector. It is nothing more than a debating platform for world leaders. And most of the time, they don't agree.

They promote Globalism which is the capitalist agenda. They are a capitalist controlled organization.

Technically, it doesn't need to reach 2. All that needs to happen is for global birth rates to be below death rates. Having a birth rate below 2 just means that this is more easily achievable and to occur quicker.

Birth rate includes death rates into the calculation.

As for migration, as I have told you before, just because America (or any other nation) prevents immigrants from entering their country, this doesn't stop the global population from increasing (or decreasing). Migrants don't leave the planet because they can't migrate. Whether a country needs migrants or not depends on employment figures or skilled Labour shortages in specific fields. And if you think preventing migrants will increase US GDP, think again. How big is US debt again?

More globalist propaganda. The world would have died off long ago if this was true. If you can not find and educate the people you need out of a population of one million, then you are seriously incompetent.

[One Degree]

They promote Globalism which is the capitalist agenda. They are a capitalist controlled organization.



Birth rate includes death rates into the calculation.



More globalist propaganda. The world would have died off long ago if this was true. If you can not find and educate the people you need out of a population of one million, then you are seriously incompetent.

Edit: I did not respond to overall global population and immigration control. At some point you must cross off other parts of the world and just look after yourself. North America controlling it's population will be sufficient to survive while the rest of the world collapses.

[Know It All]

But the birth rate is reducing. The only thing that is increasing each year is life expectancy. When this levels out, because birth rates are reducing each year, the global population will start reducing. That is because death rates will surpass birth rates. It's simple maths and logic. Current UN projections says the global population will begin its decline when it reaches 11 billion. And when you consider global warming and the increasing risks of famine in Africa that will occur from this, it might not even reach that level (as Africa are the biggest offenders for global birth rates).

You make 11 billion people sound like nothing. That is another 50% more than we have at present.

I appreciate the fact that the majority of civilized countries have controlled birth rates through the responsibility of it's indigenous population, but that isn't the problem. Third world countries continue to produce unsustainable amounts of children, and this is aided by the billions of pounds pumped into these countries by the west. If the west/civilized countries continue with their open door policies the third world will continue to breed like rabbits, and we will all suffer as a result.

It's a horrible mess. The advanced countries continue to keep their old alive for ridiculous amounts of time and produce less children, whilst the third world countries continue to breed, although they can't afford to keep the children. This means that the civilized countries have to let in the people from the third world countries, which in turn creates all sorts of cultural problems. Meanwhile the planet's population is exploding.

I have the answer, and I would like to thank everyone for their input. If the world stops all immigration and financial aid, each country would have to survive based on their financial and human resources. In short, this would be survival of the fittest, but perhaps that's what it was always meant to be !!

[B0ycey]

They promote Globalism which is the capitalist agenda. They are a capitalist controlled organization.

Being that it is an entire world forum, this is one mighty claim. Perhaps you should publish this opinion in the conspiracy theory forum with your evidence.

Birth rate includes death rates into the calculation.

Every 2 people have on average 2.5 children. Where does death rates come into this equation?

More globalist propaganda. The world would have died off long ago if this was true. If you can not find and educate the people you need out of a population of one million, then you are seriously incompetent.

Then the western world is seriously incompetent. Where did your nuclear and rocket scientists come from again? Sometimes experience cannot come from the class room. It sometimes needs to be imported. And also if you have a growing economy, sometimes jobs creation outweighs Labour. This is just a fact. Not propaganda. Propaganda would say this isn't true to promote anti-immigration agendas.

[One Degree]

"B0ycey"]Being that it is an entire world forum, this is one mighty claim. Perhaps you should publish this opinion in the conspiracy theory forum with your evidence.

I could do that or you could look at what the UN promotes and what benefits Capitalism.

Every 2 people have on average 2.5 children. Where does death rates come into this equation?

We need to agree on terminology. Are you saying 2.5 is the birth rate or the fertility rate?

World Birth and Death Rates
Birth Rate Death Rate
• 19 births/1,000 population • 8 deaths/1,000 population
• 131.4 million births per year • 55.3 million people die each year
• 360,000 births per day • 151,600 people die each day
• 15,000 births each hour • 6,316 people die each hour
2 more rows
World Birth & Death Rates - Ecology Global Network
www.ecology.com/birth-death-rates/

The Bold shows an increase of almost 80 million people per year.

Then the western world is seriously incompetent. Where did your nuclear and rocket scientists come from again? Sometimes experience cannot come from the class room. It sometimes needs to be imported. And also if you have a growing economy, sometimes jobs creation outweighs Labour. This is just a fact. Not propaganda. Propaganda would say this isn't true to promote anti-immigration agendas.

Why do you not see you are using capitalist reasoning? Yes, if you adopt their belief in an ever growing population then what you say is true. This is totally incompatible with reducing population. Why do you believe if you have a population of one million people, it would be impossible to find the people you need to fill the jobs for one million people? Do you believe different people around the world are more suited to some jobs than others? You must ignore the capitalist agenda if you wish to control population growth.

[Pants-of-dog]

My idea is: everyone who complains about overpopulation can not have kids. If they are still concerned, they can be the change they want to see in the world.

[B0ycey]

I could do that or you could look at what the UN promotes and what benefits Capitalism.

This would make a good thread. Show me your evidence and I will look at how the UN promotes and benefits capitalism.

We need to agree on terminology. Are you saying 2.5 is the birth rate or the fertility rate?

Birth rates. I don't recall fertility being mentioned. Nonetheless, this isn't actually important. The real factor is death rates over birth rates. And we are living longer. When this levels out, fertility rates will reduce.

The Bold shows an increase of almost 80 million people per year.

And the global population is increasing. The fact we are living longer accounts for this.

Why do you not see you are using capitalist reasoning? Yes, if you adopt their belief in an ever growing population then what you say is true. This is totally incompatible with reducing population. Why do you believe if you have a population of one million people, it would be impossible to find the people you need to fill the jobs for one million people?

What if you have one million people, but you have two million jobs? You either accept migrants and have growth or you don't and have negative growth. When you have the debt at the level of the US, without growth, your economy will implode.

Do you believe different people around the world are more suited to some jobs than others? You must ignore the capitalist agenda if you wish to control population growth.

Sometimes the skills your nation needs happens to be abroad. Take doctors for example (a UK problem). Because of the years you need to do in medical school, we have a doctor shortage. Unless you migrate them in, you don't have enough doctors. Skilled Labour is needed for every major economy. If the US don't want them, rest assured another country will. And over time this will reduce the US dominance as a major player in economic supremacy. China will take over. And the jobs will follow.

[One Degree]

@B0ycey

If you stop and think about what happens in a world or country with a stable population, then you realize your educational system must plan to fill these needs. You would not have 2 million jobs for 1 million people because the economy would no longer be based upon expansion of jobs, but upon economy of production. All of our goals must change in this new world. Zero net immigration would still be useful to account for unexpected changes and invigoration, but surplus immigration would be destructive, especially to the countries they were leaving. You would have a set number of people to work with and this actually makes it much easier to plan for the future needs. The dramatic fluctuations we currently experience would not exist.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Every 2 people have on average 2.5 children. Where does death rates come into this equation?

We need to agree on terminology. Are you saying 2.5 is the birth rate or the fertility rate?

Birth rates. I don't recall fertility being mentioned.

No, that is a fertility rate you're talking about - 2.5 children for every 2 people (normally put as '2.5 children for every woman'). A birth rate is the number of births per year, normally divide by the entire population, eg 9.8 births per thousand.

The combination of birth and death rates gives you a snapshot of the crude population change rate (for a country, you then take emigration and immigration into account for the overall rate). When looking at long term changes, the total fertility rate is the most important figure (death rates may change, but life expectancy has a limit it can't go beyond - few countries could more than double their life expectancy).

[B0ycey]

@One Degree

Your opinions are your opinions. But let me give you some facts about the US economy. Their wealth is due to globalization. Without a global network, your biggest global brands will have to move abroad or go bust. If you remove yourself from a global market, you have to be self sufficient. The US are mineral heavy. It won't be longer before you run out of certain things and go into another great depression. And if you remove yourself from a financial system that you created, the dollar becomes worthless and nobody will trade with you. But if you like the simple life and you are not into luxuries, by all means, promote your utopian dream.

[B0ycey]

No, that is a fertility rate you're talking about - 2.5 children for every 2 people (normally put as '2.5 children for every woman').

71 (global life expectancy) x 18.6 (birth rate per 1000) = 1320

1320 ÷1000 (because it is per 1000 not a couple) = 1.320

1.320 x 2 = 2.640

So I was wrong. Birth rate per couple is actually 2.640. Nonetheless, these figures are irrelevant. It's death rate over birth rate that's the important figure for global population predictions and as we are living longer than we did 70 years ago there is an in balance. So there is currently a population explosion. But in another 70 years, things should level out and and it is predicted the global population will begin reducing. However that doesn't mean I think we shouldn't be promoting global birth control. I think we not only should be, we need to be.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

What you've done is show a very rough way to approximate a fertility rate from a birth rate and a life expectancy. The world total fertility rate is 2.453. The crude birth rate is 19.349. Life expectancy at birth is 71.455. But 71.455 x 2.453 / 500 is 2.77, because that's just a rough way to work it out if you make assumptions (such as that nothing is changing). Here's a definition: https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 7rank.html

[B0ycey]

I don't know how you've done your maths, but with just a quick glance it's wrong. Simplifying the maths at 72 x 2.5 (I'm on my phone and don't have a calculator at hand) it's 180. Divide that by 500 and it's 0.something. Nonetheless, I don't really want to debate this minor fact. Seventy years ago was just after the second World War, so naturally there is going to be a difference between people being born and dying. And according to the UN we will reach the peek at 11 billion. Then the world's population should balance out. And for the sakes of resources and global warming issues we should be promoting birth control.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

I don't know how you've done your maths, but with just a quick glance it's wrong. Simplifying the maths at 72 x 2.5 (I'm on my phone and don't have a calculator at hand) it's 180. Divide that by 500 and it's 0.something. Nonetheless, I don't really want to debate this minor fact. Seventy years ago was just after the second World War, so naturally there is going to be a difference between people being born and dying. And according to the UN we will reach the peek at 11 billion. Then the world's population should balance out. And for the sakes of resources and global warming issues we should be promoting birth control.

You're right - I should have written 71.455 x 19.349 / 500 = 2.77, which is the calculation you did, but with the accurate figures. The point is that it only gives an approximation of the true total fertility rate. The fertility rate is the useful figure, rather than the birth and death rates, because it relates to how people live their lives - a total of 2 children , or 3, and so on. We don't think in terms of "this is the number of people I know, or are in my town, and this is the number who were born and died this year".

[Know It All]

What a brilliant thread, and well doe to the person who posted it. There have been some great and enlightening points made.

So, to some things up. It's evident that the world is already overpopulated, and it would appear that when we get to 11 billion people things will start to slow down. The problem being that 11 billion is 50% more than we have at present. It would appear that we agree that part of this big problem is that people in the western world are living much longer, and it's unlikely that this going to change. Unfortunately this has changed the demographic, and created financial implications for the respective governments. Somebody also pointed out that many governments don't want a reduction in population because there may be financial implications that in turn may well effect the economy. What's interesting is that whilst people in the western world are having less children, the worlds population is rising dramatically. This indicates two things, (1) we are living longer, as previously stated, and (2) people from third world countries are producing more and more children. As a result of the aid pumped into these countries, more children are surviving. To fill the vacant jobs in the western world, third world countries are supplying more and more man power. It's almost like parts of Africa and Asia have become breeding farms for the west. Of course, this change has created other problems. We now found societies rebelling against mass immigration and the change in culture it brings, as well as this the infrastructure in many countries, such as the UK, can not manage with the sudden increase in population.

So, what exactly is the answer. If all civilsed western countries worked towards a complete halt on immigration, and stopped sending money to third world countries, this may well solve the issues. People in the third world countries would die more quickly, and because of the reduced amount of children people are having in first world countries the population would stabilize.

Hang on a minute. The western world would then have a complete imbalance of young and old, and the workforce wouldn't exist to aid a strong economy.

Sorry, I have run out of ideas, GOOD NIGHT

[One Degree]

Hang on a minute. The western world would then have a complete imbalance of young and old, and the workforce wouldn't exist to aid a strong economy.

Sorry, I have run out of ideas, GOOD NIGHT

Why is it everyone understands unemployment is due to automation, but when it comes to a population discussion, we must have more workers? The imbalance in age takes care of it's self. It is a self curing problem. People die. All you have to do is be patient and maybe suffer a short term economic down turn.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

As a result of the aid pumped into these countries, more children are surviving.

If all civilsed western countries worked towards a complete halt on immigration, and stopped sending money to third world countries, this may well solve the issues.

Aid may be helping the life expectancy in developing countries a bit, but it's more just the spread of medical knowledge. You don't "solve an issue" with a method you expect to shorten life expectancy, unless you're a callous, heartless bastard.

Why is it everyone understands unemployment is due to automation, but when it comes to a population discussion, we must have more workers? :?: The imbalance in age takes care of it's self. It is a self curing problem. People die. All you have to do is be patient and maybe suffer a short term economic down turn.

It depends on the jobs; some are proving easily automatable, while others (eg caring for the old) not, so far. And there's also the question of whether the rich would be willing to pay more taxes on the profits of owning the machines to keep society going, or if they're determined to hang on to it all (or if governments will raise taxes enough to be able to own the machines, for the general benefit of everyone). At least if a capitalist runs a company with lots of employees, a lot of the turnover goes back into wages and circulates in the economy. If more and more of the GDP just goes to the richest, who won't pay enough taxes to keep the elderly healthy, it will all just become a dystopic hellhole.