Will human population and economic activity exceed the Planets carrying capacity?

[Jokodo]

"the population will continue to grow, albeit at a slowing rate, in sub-Saharan Africa, though it has effectively ground to a halt in the rest of the world, including most of the developing world".

What's the 'it' in that sentence?

If it's population growth, then that has not ground to a halt outside developed regions, it's increasing.

It's most definitely not increasing.

In the most recent year of data, 2014, China added 6.5 million to its population. 50 years ago, that figure was 21 million per year.

In 2015, Brazil added 1.72 million people to its population. The same figure was at 2.93 in the early 80s.

Both countries today have below replacement fertility rates, meaning that the figures will drop below 0 without a change in behaviour of its people - all that needs to happen is for the people born in the 50s, 60s and 70s to grow old enough to die of age related causes in significant numbers - pretty unavoidable if you ask me.

In India, the number is 15.2, down from 18.6 in the 90s. In Indonesia, 2.99 million, down from 3.53. And while both countries still have above replacement fertility rates, the numbers are rapidly approaching 2.0.

The claim that population growth is increasing is clearly false.

ETA: link: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-growth-the-annual-change-of-the-population

 

[Jokodo]

View attachment 18410

Once again, a graph that shows the opposite of what you want it to show. If you can't clearly see a decrease of the growth in that graph, there is little I can do to help you.

 

[ruby sparks]

Population growth is increasing. The rate of this is declining.

 

[ruby sparks]

No. On second thoughts, I think you're right and I'm wrong.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's most definitely not increasing.

Population growth is not increasing, it is decreasing. My mistake. Apologies.

 

[ruby sparks]

And the graph clearly shows a steep rise in population....

Yes, an increase in population, but not an increase in population growth. I think Jokodo is right. The writer of the article you cited (and you and I) got it wrong. Population growth is itself an increase, so an increase in that would be an increase in the increase, which is not the case. There is a decrease in the increase. Population growth is slowing, even while population is increasing.

 

[steve_bank]

Growth in which the next iteration of population size is based on tha percentage of the existing population be it bacteria or humans is exponential growth.

When you are talking about related rates of change it is easier to express it as differential equations,.



USA demographics and birth rates. Without Immigration our population would be declining like Japan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States

 

[Politesse]

Growth in which the next iteration of population size is based on tha percentage of the existing population be it bacteria or humans is exponential growth.

When you are talking about related rates of change it is easier to express it as differential equations,.



USA demographics and birth rates. Without Immigration our population would be declining like Japan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States

"Easy" and "correct" are not synonyms.

 

[Jokodo]

Growth in which the next iteration of population size is based on tha percentage of the existing population be it bacteria or humans is exponential growth.

This is a tautology: It's true by definition. There's only a slight empirical problem: humans don't show exponential growth, and there isn't anything like a fixed percentage of the existing population giving birth each year. The annual number of new humans in the world peaked 30 years ago, the percentage growth rate about 50 years ago.

When you are talking about related rates of change it is easier to express it as differential equations.

Sure we could express it in those terms: Population is increasing (and trivially positive), the first derivative of population (that's population growth) is positive and decreasing, the second derivative is negative. If we were looking at exponential growth, all of them would have to be positive and increasing.

 

[Jokodo]

None of that has anything to do with the general increase in entropy, which is specifically what you brought up.

OK. I revise my modifier for entropy to problem specific appropriate entropy. Building cities degrade the land around them pushing farming out further, increasing energy use to get product to people who live in cities is an example of increasing entropic cost. Letting land lie fallow is only useful if conditions remain the same for extended periods of time, otherwise another calculations needs be performed to find matching crops to conditions which then need to be inserted into human diets as effectively as were the previous ones coming from that land. Often humans have to move on and build another city elsewhere because matches cannot be found.

That's two entropy increasing issues with city building alone. I wish you'd just accept that when I speak of entropy I'm speaking of it in the system relative to human habitation. Doing otherwise destroys conversations - yet another entropy loss condition - you see.

That's not what "entropy" means.

But since you were mentioning the transportation of foodstuff, what percentage of a typical person's carbon footprint do your reckon is caused by shipping food, and what percentage by their daily commute? Given that very few people eat their own mass in food per day, but a handsome number do ship their own mass around to get to work almost every day, and many their own mass plus that of their car?

I'll tell you: The net effect of urbanisation on the environment is overwhelmingly positive.

 

[steve_bank]

Growth in which the next iteration of population size is based on tha percentage of the existing population be it bacteria or humans is exponential growth.

When you are talking about related rates of change it is easier to express it as differential equations,.



USA demographics and birth rates. Without Immigration our population would be declining like Japan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States

"Easy" and "correct" are not synonyms.

What the fuck...over.

 

[DBT]

Words matter. What I objected to and called a distortion is not "the population continues to grow, though basically only in Africa". What I objected to is something along the lines of "population growth with surge, in the developing world, in particular Africa". Those do not have the same meaning.

Well, that is the issue. Population growth continuing because it is being driven by Africa. That is the point. That is what the stats show and that is what the graph clearly represents.

The driver of overall growth being the surge in Africa.

Nobody has claimed anything more than that. Nothing is being claimed that is not represented in the stats and depicted on the graph.

Of course, it's not the only issue. As pointed out before, rising living standards with its related rise in consumption to that of an average developed nation citizen - even with a stable 7 billion, yet alone 10 billion - can push sustainability into non-sustainability.....considering that we are now pushing many ecosystems to the limit, Amazon basin, Rain-forests, etc.

It's quite simple really. Do you believe that "the population will continue to grow, albeit at a slowing rate, in sub-Saharan Africa, though it has effectively ground to a halt in the rest of the world, including most of the developing world" has the same meaning as "population growth will surge in the developing world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa"?

Yes or no?

If the answer is "no", please stop quoting analyses supporting the former as evidence of the latter.

Population growth in nation states where there is growth adds more people to the overall population of the World. If population happens to be rising in some nations, World Population - as a consequence - must necessarily be increasing. What happens Africa (and elsewhere) is not separate from the World as a whole.

If the World population happens to 8 billion, but Africa's population has increased by 20 million, the Planets human population has increased by 20 million.

That's all.


''Growth Rate. Population in the world is currently (2018) growing at a rate of around 1.09% per year (down from 1.12% in 2017 and 1.14% in 2016). The current average population increase is estimated at 83 million people per year.''

 

[bilby]

It's quite simple really. Do you believe that "the population will continue to grow, albeit at a slowing rate, in sub-Saharan Africa, though it has effectively ground to a halt in the rest of the world, including most of the developing world" has the same meaning as "population growth will surge in the developing world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa"?

Yes or no?

If the answer is "no", please stop quoting analyses supporting the former as evidence of the latter.

Population growth in nation states where there is growth adds more people to the overall population of the World. If population happens to be rising in some nations, World Population - as a consequence - must necessarily be increasing. What happens Africa (and elsewhere) is not separate from the World as a whole.

If the World population happens to 8 billion, but Africa's population has increased by 20 million, the Planets human population has increased by 20 million.

That's all.

That's just wrong.

If the World population happens to [be] 8 billion, but Africa's population has increased by 20 million, the Planets human population has increased by 20 million minus the net decreases in population on other continents, plus the net increases on other continents. If Europe's population decreases by 15 million, and all the other continents keep the exact same population level, then Africa's 20 million increase has only resulted in an increase of 5 million by the world total.

Looking at the growth rate of any subset of the world is insufficient to tell you anything about changes to the population of the entire world. Africa's growth rate tells you neither the magnitude NOR the direction of the world population total, and a 20 million increase in the number of Africans could easily be consistent with a decline in world population.

 

[DBT]

It's quite simple really. Do you believe that "the population will continue to grow, albeit at a slowing rate, in sub-Saharan Africa, though it has effectively ground to a halt in the rest of the world, including most of the developing world" has the same meaning as "population growth will surge in the developing world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa"?

Yes or no?

If the answer is "no", please stop quoting analyses supporting the former as evidence of the latter.

Population growth in nation states where there is growth adds more people to the overall population of the World. If population happens to be rising in some nations, World Population - as a consequence - must necessarily be increasing. What happens Africa (and elsewhere) is not separate from the World as a whole.

If the World population happens to 8 billion, but Africa's population has increased by 20 million, the Planets human population has increased by 20 million.

That's all.

That's just wrong.

If the World population happens to [be] 8 billion, but Africa's population has increased by 20 million, the Planets human population has increased by 20 million minus the net decreases in population on other continents, plus the net increases on other continents. If Europe's population decreases by 15 million, and all the other continents keep the exact same population level, then Africa's 20 million increase has only resulted in an increase of 5 million by the world total.

Looking at the growth rate of any subset of the world is insufficient to tell you anything about changes to the population of the entire world. Africa's growth rate tells you neither the magnitude NOR the direction of the world population total, and a 20 million increase in the number of Africans could easily be consistent with a decline in world population.

It was just an example of increasing population, given what the specific point I was responding to. The figures I gave are purely arbitrary.

As for predicted population demographics:

Quote:
''The population of Earth is unlikely to stabilize this century, according to a new analysis published in the 19 September issue of the journal Science. The findings are contrary to past studies, which have predicted that the world population will peak around 2050 and then level off or decline.

The results — based on a statistical analysis of the most recent population projections from the United Nations — suggest the global population will continue to grow through and beyond 2100. Based on their analysis, the researchers estimate an 80% probability that the world population, now 7.2 billion, will increase to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion by 2100.

"This finding is not completely in line with the conventional wisdom of the past 15 years," said co-author Adrian Raftery, professor of statistics and sociology at the University of Washington, "and this made us check all our results even more carefully."


"Our work," he said, "showed different results for two main reasons: new data and new methods."

The main driver of global population growth in their study is an increase in the projected population of Africa, the researchers found. Demographers had projected that the decline in fertility seen in Asia and Latin America since 1950 would continue in Africa, too, but Raftery and colleagues show that this decline has actually stalled in Africa.

What's more, many African women are still having larger families (the median size is 4.6 children), in part due to a lack of contraceptives. Mortality from HIV has been reduced in Africa as well, and the results of the study show the clear impact of this improvement.''

 

[Jokodo]

It's quite simple really. Do you believe that "the population will continue to grow, albeit at a slowing rate, in sub-Saharan Africa, though it has effectively ground to a halt in the rest of the world, including most of the developing world" has the same meaning as "population growth will surge in the developing world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa"?

Yes or no?

If the answer is "no", please stop quoting analyses supporting the former as evidence of the latter.

Population growth in nation states where there is growth adds more people to the overall population of the World. If population happens to be rising in some nations, World Population - as a consequence - must necessarily be increasing. What happens Africa (and elsewhere) is not separate from the World as a whole.

If the World population happens to 8 billion, but Africa's population has increased by 20 million, the Planets human population has increased by 20 million.

That's all.


''Growth Rate. Population in the world is currently (2018) growing at a rate of around 1.09% per year (down from 1.12% in 2017 and 1.14% in 2016). The current average population increase is estimated at 83 million people per year.''

None of what you say is pertinent to my question. I did not ask you for a citation that the world population is growing. I asked you for a citation that the growth is increasing. Your citation demonstrates the opposite. Positive growth and increasing growth are not the same concept.

Your quote clearly shows that growth is decreasing.

 

[Jokodo]

That's just wrong.

If the World population happens to [be] 8 billion, but Africa's population has increased by 20 million, the Planets human population has increased by 20 million minus the net decreases in population on other continents, plus the net increases on other continents. If Europe's population decreases by 15 million, and all the other continents keep the exact same population level, then Africa's 20 million increase has only resulted in an increase of 5 million by the world total.

Looking at the growth rate of any subset of the world is insufficient to tell you anything about changes to the population of the entire world. Africa's growth rate tells you neither the magnitude NOR the direction of the world population total, and a 20 million increase in the number of Africans could easily be consistent with a decline in world population.

It was just an example of increasing population, given what the specific point I was responding to. The figures I gave are purely arbitrary.

As for predicted population demographics:

Quote:
''The population of Earth is unlikely to stabilize this century, according to a new analysis published in the 19 September issue of the journal Science. The findings are contrary to past studies, which have predicted that the world population will peak around 2050 and then level off or decline.

The results — based on a statistical analysis of the most recent population projections from the United Nations — suggest the global population will continue to grow through and beyond 2100. Based on their analysis, the researchers estimate an 80% probability that the world population, now 7.2 billion, will increase to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion by 2100.

"This finding is not completely in line with the conventional wisdom of the past 15 years," said co-author Adrian Raftery, professor of statistics and sociology at the University of Washington, "and this made us check all our results even more carefully."


"Our work," he said, "showed different results for two main reasons: new data and new methods."

The main driver of global population growth in their study is an increase in the projected population of Africa, the researchers found. Demographers had projected that the decline in fertility seen in Asia and Latin America since 1950 would continue in Africa, too, but Raftery and colleagues show that this decline has actually stalled in Africa.

It has not stalled.

Here is a chart of the fertility decline in the 10 most populous countries of sub-Saharan Africa: https://data.worldbank.org/indicato...cations=NG-ET-CD-ZA-TZ-KE-UG-MZ-GH&start=1986

30 years ago, each single one of them (with the exception of South Africa at 4.2), had a TFR of 6.0 or higher. The only one that still does today is DR Congo. Kenya, Ethiopia, and Ghana have dropped into the region of 3.8-4.2 - a 43% reduction in the case of Kenya and Ethiopia, 34% for Ghana. South Africa today is below 2.5 and falling, also a 42% reduction.

I repeat, this is not a cherry-picked set of the only African countries where it still falls: Those are all and only the ten most populous countries of sub-Saharan Africa.

What's more, many African women are still having larger families (the median size is 4.6 children), in part due to a lack of contraceptives. Mortality from HIV has been reduced in Africa as well, and the results of the study show the clear impact of this improvement.''

larger than what? Some decades ago, the global average was 5.0, and closer to 6.7 in the developing world. An average of 4.6 is historically low, and itself an indication that fertility reductions have not stalled.

Today, the grand total of countries with fertility rates above 6.3 is 1. Yes, one, Niger. Many countries on all continents that had fertility rates in Niger's region are below replacement today, including but not limited to Colombia, Vietnam, Iran...

 

[DBT]

It's quite simple really. Do you believe that "the population will continue to grow, albeit at a slowing rate, in sub-Saharan Africa, though it has effectively ground to a halt in the rest of the world, including most of the developing world" has the same meaning as "population growth will surge in the developing world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa"?

Yes or no?

If the answer is "no", please stop quoting analyses supporting the former as evidence of the latter.

Population growth in nation states where there is growth adds more people to the overall population of the World. If population happens to be rising in some nations, World Population - as a consequence - must necessarily be increasing. What happens Africa (and elsewhere) is not separate from the World as a whole.

If the World population happens to 8 billion, but Africa's population has increased by 20 million, the Planets human population has increased by 20 million.

That's all.


''Growth Rate. Population in the world is currently (2018) growing at a rate of around 1.09% per year (down from 1.12% in 2017 and 1.14% in 2016). The current average population increase is estimated at 83 million people per year.''

None of what you say is pertinent to my question. I did not ask you for a citation that the world population is growing. I asked you for a citation that the growth is increasing. Your citation demonstrates the opposite. Positive growth and increasing growth are not the same concept.

Your quote clearly shows that growth is decreasing.

I made no claim that overall growth rate is increasing. The claim being that world population is still increasing, which is not the same as 'the rate is increasing' which appears to be something you added.....and as the article states, world population is increasing at a rate of 1.09% per year.


I did state that there are nation states in Africa where growth is increasing, and provided stats and a graph to support what I said. I also said that population growth in Africa, et al, adds to overall population growth.....currently at 1.09% per year.

Again. This does not mean that the overall growth rate itself is increasing.

 

[Jokodo]

I made no claim that overall growth rate is increasing.

You very much did:

Population growth is expected to surge in developing nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.

This is a direct quote. I did not edit anything.

I did state that there are nation states in Africa where growth is increasing, and provided stats and a graph to support what I said.

I don't remembe any stats about individual nation states, only about the continent as a whole - and what it showed was not increasing growth.

 

[DBT]

I made no claim that overall growth rate is increasing.

You very much did:

Population growth is expected to surge in developing nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.

This is a direct quote. I did not edit anything.

Yes, I said surge..... a surge in developing nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. This does not mean 'World population growth is expected to surge'

The 'surge' I referred to is the upward inclining line you can see in the graph. I posted the graph and related quotes to support what I said.

The purple line is steep enough to qualify as a surge.

See the purple line heading upwards? The purple line represents population growth in Sub Saharan Africa till the end of the century. A century of population growth in Sub Saharan Africa.....


surge
/səːdʒ/
noun
noun: surge; plural noun: surges

1.
a sudden powerful forward or upward movement, especially by a crowd or by a natural force such as the tide.
"flooding caused by tidal surges"

So while this population growth is not 'sudden.' it is a powerful upward movement, which makes it a surge.

 

[Jokodo]

See the purple line heading upwards? The purple line represents population growth in Sub Saharan Africa till the end of the century.

It represents a gradually slowing growth. Not a surging one.

A century of population growth in Sub Saharan Africa.....


surge
/səːdʒ/
noun
noun: surge; plural noun: surges

1.
a sudden powerful forward or upward movement, especially by a crowd or by a natural force such as the tide.
"flooding caused by tidal surges"

while the population may be moving upward, population growth is moving downward. Powerful or not, sudden or not, doesn't even enter the equation.

You could have said the population is going to surge, and you may have had a point. You did, however, say that population growth is going to surge.

Words have meaning, and reality is, well, real. If you have to stretch the meaning of words beyond recognition to make reality support your narrative, the fault lies squarely with your narrative, not with reality nor with those words.