Human Population

[konerko14]

After looking through charts of the growth of human population, it appears that every 10-15 years one billion more people will be on Earth. I estimated that out to be an addition of 70 billion people in 1000 years from now, as opposed to the 6 billion that inhabit Earth as of today. Or to present an even shorter range estimation, 200-300 years from now that would be an increase of about 20 billion people. First of all, is there a chance that these estimations will be accurate- why or why not? Also, would that amount of people(70 bil.)cause any severe problems such as overcrowdedness, lack of job opportunities, lack of resources, etc? And if this becomes a realization in the future, what would be the correct way to approach the problem?

http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/humanpop_graph.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Edited August 20, 2006 by konerko14

[Maarten]

You're forgetting that the growth will likely speed up before it levels off. So in 50 years or so it might only take 5-10 more years to get another billion people added to the population. The main thing is that the development of newer and more efficient methods of producing goods would have to keep pace with this increase in population. Perhaps we can start mining the moon if some things start running out here in a century or so..

[Bold Standard]

Also, would that amount of people(70 bil.)cause any severe problems such as overcrowdedness, lack of job opportunities, lack of resources, etc?

I found these comments from Dr. Binswanger's article, Open Immigration, interesting and somewhat relevant to this topic.

Contrary to widespread beliefs, high population density is a value not a disvalue. High population density intensifies the division of labor, which makes possible a wider variety of jobs and specialized consumer products. For instance, in Manhattan, there is a "doll hospital"--a store specializing in the repair of children's dolls. Such a specialized, niche business requires a high population density in order to have a market. Try finding a doll hospital in Poughkeepsie. In Manhattan, one can find a job as a Pilates Method teacher or as a "Secret Shopper" (two jobs actually listed on Craig's List). Not in Paducah.

People want to live near other people, in cities. One-seventh of England's population lives in London. If population density is a bad thing, why are Manhattan real-estate prices so high?

[ian]

So many things can happen in 1000 years. We may have Star Trek like universe by then. I don't think it's possible to take that estimate seriously.

[Inspector]

Under Capitalism, or even mostly-capitalism, more people means more producers. More production means more wealth and more capital. The accumulation of capital is, from a purely economic standpoint, just about the most favorable thing to have.

There is absolutely no reason to fear population growth.

[DavidOdden]

Here is a nice way to concretize discussions of population. Get Google Earth, and start looking for signs of human population. I am always quite amazed at how empty the planet is.

[aequalsa]

Something else to consider is that population growth slows down and eventually reduces as income levels rise. Also, population cannot excede food supply for very long for obvious reasons.

[JMeganSnow]

I remember hearing that the population of the entire planet could move to Texas and it still wouldn't be as crowded as downtown Paris.

Personally, I like having access to amenities, but I also like privacy so that I can do what I want without people watching me. People watching me makes me crazy. I've moved around a lot in my life, though, so I'm adaptable. Apartment with no yard? I can do that.

[scottkursk]

I remember hearing that the population of the entire planet could move to Texas and it still wouldn't be as crowded as downtown Paris.

Ouch, don't go encouraging them Megan. How about we say Alaska if we promise not to send up any more presidents? ok?

In all seriousness, the vast majority of the earth is empty. There is more than enough room for everyone. The problem is that in most places, thanks to goverment intervention in the processes of life, it's very much underutilized. People complain about the rain forests being cut down (the reality of which is another argument) to make way for farms. In a way, yes that is true. However, and this is a big however, those farms aren't the big corporate farms like you see here in the USA or other developed countries. So, the farmers aren't as big or nearly as efficient as other places. So if the Brazilian government would give up the BS dream of being anti-competition in the farming arena then large companies could utilize and produce more with less ground.

If anyone has read Mahan and the Influence of Seapower, he pointed out what I am. Basically, the Ukraine was the breadbasket of Europe and it was the only superfertile ground not reachable by naval guns. That was until the USA came along. Both countries had more than enough ground to feed everyone. Heck, the Ukraine and the heartland of the USA could probably feed the world if they did it right. Furthermore, if China and India could get their acts together then the sky is the limit.

The real hunger in the world is almost always directly traceable to government interference.

That goes for the potato famine in Ireland to the starvation in Africa today.