The Overpopulation Myth

Published in The Lancet, a study from the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation projects that the world population, which now stands at 7.8 billion, will peak in 2064 at 9.7 billion (95% CI: 8.8 billion to 10.9 billion) then fall by 2100 to 8.8 billion (95% CI: 6.8 billion to 11.8 billion). If the UN's Sustainable Development Goals are met, which include education and access to contraception, the authors project a population of 6.3 billion (95% CI: 4.8 billion to 8.7 billion) by 2100, smaller than it is today.

Shockingly, the paper predicts that some countries will see their populations cut in half or more by 2100. Poland, for instance, currently has a population of just under 38 million and is projected to fall to 15.4 million (95% CI: 12 million to 21 million) by the end of the century. (Part of the reason for the dramatic decline in Eastern European populations is due to emigration.) Even China is expected to shrink by roughly half, from 1.4 billion today to 732 million (95% CI: 456 million to 1.5 billion).

A Smaller, Older World

Such a demographic shift will have enormous implications. Not only will the world be smaller, it will be older. How do we keep the global economy healthy if there are far more older, retired people than younger, working people? How will we pay for the healthcare of all the elderly people? Will we need an army of robots to take care of them? Japan is already headed in that direction.

By now, the overpopulation myth should be dead and buried. There isn't a single scrap of data to support it. Instead, we should focus on reality and the consequences that accompany it.



https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/08/05/overpopulation-myth-new-study-predicts-population-decline-century-14953

Not sure its a myth, you can only get so many people in a room, especially comfortably, then there's supplying enough food and more importantly water. I don't think a planet full of people and hardly anything else is healthy.

Vintage wrote:Not sure its a myth, you can only get so many people in a room, especially comfortably, then there's supplying enough food and more importantly water.  I don't think a planet full of people and hardly anything else is healthy.

There is a finite number that will fit on this planet.

We are nowhere near it.

Much of the planet is already facing the pitfalls of a declining population. Japan being the prime example.

You are only talking about human population I think. I'm sure we'll manage, the majority of us are not actually contributing very much, so are not in demand for anything, we are mainly taking resources for very little return..

Yes, I'm talking about humans. Population shifts are about to become problematic and it has nothing to do with too many people.

So why are we invading more and more habitat, why are we flattening the Amazon, which may have plants that could be beneficial to human medicine. Why are the tribes there being forced north to keep out of the way of companies mowing down the rainforest, why do they feel the need to have guardians of the forest, many of whom end up murdered.
Anything to do with palm oil and ranching because of the huge demand for these products by the ever expanding consumers and of course the massive financial returns for those global companies. How many are too many, do we wait until we have trees in special reserves and most of the flora and fauna are gone forever or do we hope that in the future scientists can reproduce interesting species from DNA and keep them on special islands for tourists to visit and gawp at.

Vintage wrote:So why are we invading more and more habitat, why are we flattening the Amazon, which may have plants that could be beneficial to human medicine. Why are the tribes there being forced north to keep out of the way of companies mowing down the rainforest, why do they feel the need to have guardians of the forest, many of whom end up murdered.
Anything to do with palm oil and ranching because of the huge demand for these products by the ever expanding consumers and of course the massive financial returns for those global companies. How many are too many, do we wait until we have trees in special reserves and most of the flora and fauna are gone forever or do we hope that in the future scientists can reproduce interesting species from DNA and keep them on special islands for tourists to visit and gawp at.

That's about money and allocation of resources. Same as poaching Rhinos.