The world population jumped 77 million people in just the past year. Our census bureau predicts the world population is 6,661,598,000 people. Its impossible for us to keep up plenty of housing, food, and resources with a population growth like that. Our country alone adds 1 net person every 12 seconds (a birth every 7 seconds and an immigrant every 29 seconds with a death every 12 seconds, also from census bureau).

Whats worse, generally that population increase comes from families that simply can't afford those number of children. The average middle class family has less than 2 children, while the average poor family has more than 3. The circle of poverty continues as the poor family can't afford to feed, clothe, and later provide education for their children leading to more poor, disenfranchised families with multiple children.

This is a product of the fish bowl effect. Eventually our population is going to have to cap out, or decline. Places like Europe are already in decline and hopefully one day the United States will plateau as well. I'm doing my part, I wear a condom :)

I don't disagree that overpopulation is a huge long-term issue, but I don't think it's very much related to this short term food crisis.

Ive posted this before, but it seems appropriate for this.

http://www.earth-parent.com/chart.jpg

I doubt that's going to happen.

Unless you're counting the population of colonies on other planets, which may very well be a reality in that time frame.

I know, but barring some outside force acting to curtail world pop that seems to be what is happening.

From 1960 to 2000 the population of the world doubled, why wouldnt this trend continue.

Isn't it true that the more you crowd people and some livestock together the more lethal illness's become?

I know I read that Europe actually has a declining population , especially if you factor out the influx of muslims from the ME.

Ahhh and there's the one great constraint on population proven time and time again as effective. War....

Urbanization and mixing people and livestock do contribute to the spread of disease but that's an extremely complex subject in and of itself. Basically human evolution for the last 6000 years or so has been almost entirely governed by immunology because the prime selection factor moved from being a good hunter-gatherer to being able to survive the 5000 strains of virii and bacteria your neighbors and pigs were throwing your way.

War has a similar effect in that most people don't die from war itself, but from the famine and disease that invariably accompany it.


From 1960 to 2000 the population of the world doubled, why wouldnt this trend continue.

Because like most animals people will naturally and subconsciously switch from R to K-style propagation models based on their environments whether you incentivise it or not. It's quite fascinating.

from R to K-style propagation models based on their environments whether you incentivise it or not. It's quite fascinating.
R to K?

Isn't it true that the more you crowd people and some livestock together the more lethal illness's become?

Read Guns Germs And Steel, by Jared Diamond. It has a wonderful account of how population, domestic animals and germs combine to form a wonderful mix of disease.

I'm sure or resident biology freaks can chime in, but strains of disease that jump from livestock to people tend to be real killers. This is part of the reason why Avian Flu (H5N1) is such a worry in some areas.

(edit) Oh, wow. They made it into a TV Show: http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/

You have to keep in mind that GGS is mostly opinion presented as fact. It's interesting, but shouldn't be taken as historical fact.

(If you liked GGS, check out Collapse too. I liked that one better of the two.)

I used the word "account" on purpose. :)
I realize Diamond's books aren't fact, but they are still pretty solid interpretations of things.

I'm gearing up for Collapse now.

Doubt you'll get more than a doubling of the world population unless we do have offworld or space colonies. Get too many people, and disease and wars will break out, and THAT will cut down on population growth real fast. You can see it today in overpopulated areas in the third world.
It's possible a "Soylent Green" scenario could occur (the crowding, not the people burgers), but i think that human nature and limits on how many people you can support will keep it in check.

Lleauric's chart is a good example of why extrapolation can be dangerous. If we simply assume that population will continue to double every 50 years, then by the year 14000, there will be approximately 10^80 humans. Since there are only about 10^80 particles in the entire universe, each human will consist of a single particle, and the entire universe will be made up of human-particles!

Population growth is primarily an issue in underdeveloped countries. Most industrialized nations have relatively stable populations, or even face the problem of underpopulation (I believe it's an issue in Japan, for example).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun#1963-1983

Not very far, if this research carries over to humans....

Brilliant Palarran, I can hear you explaining the human particles in Vent and I just had to explain my burst of laughter lmao.

$$

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun#1963-1983

Not very far, if this research carries over to humans....

Haha, I grew up and went to school in Poolesville, MD. Such a small town, never would have thought it would be brought up here.

R to K?

Mass reproduction versus highly successful individuals. You can see the K-selection heritage of humans in that we are significantly larger than our primate cousins and that we do not typically birth litters of children. Contrast this with prey animals like rabbits and minnows.

The Calhoun study nicely illustrated the unconscious population control impetus present in nearly every species -- even the more virile strains of virii die out in favor of their less fatal cousins due to resource exhaustion (hosts in that case).

There isn't a population decline in Europe *yet*, but it's forecast to become a real problem within two generations as a diminishing work force of 16-65 have to support an ever increasing 65+ population.

That's one of the arguments in support of immigration, that it will fill the increasing gap and help prop up the economy. It's a load of crap, though. Increased migration has brought less than 5bn pounds to the economy, most of which is gobbled up by immigration services, such as control and restriction, housing and relief.

I know, but barring some outside force acting to curtail world pop that seems to be what is happening.

From 1960 to 2000 the population of the world doubled, why wouldnt this trend continue.

Because it can't?

Thats a shitty title, I would have came up with a better one if I actually started this thread!

Now I think the answer Lleauric is looking for lies in all of the great British horror movies of a disease that wipes out half of the population of the planet and leaves the rest of us as punk rockers, knights that favor decapitation, or roided up aggressive zombies.

Thats a shitty title, I would have came up with a better one if I actually started this thread!
Well, next time you start derailing a thread, start your own. Then, you can pick the title!

How is discussing over population derailing a thread on food shortages?

It's not really relevant to the short term problem being discussed there. A 1% increase in population doesn't explain widespread food riots.

So anyway, back on topic:

Someone else agrees that population needs to be limited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

It does seem that humanity doesn't scale very well.

http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/surp/surp96/laughlin/stat/3D_tutor/world_pop.gif

This one might be better for the discussion.

This could lend itself to the topic of short term causes for the food shortage if you look at it as a "tipping point" kind of deal.

I agree about Collapse being a great book. The section on Easter Island is pretty amazing thinking about the dude who cut down the last tree.

The main problem I have with most of those population projections is that they hold too many factors constant.

For example, India and China cannot sustain their rapid development forever. They're already ramming head-first into major infrastructure issues. There's also the problem of energy supply vs. demand. Every person they add makes the next one cost more and produce less profit.

Same with Africa, except they have a scarcity of food, water, and medicine. In that case, there's even a good chance that higher population may eventually serve as a tipping point to spread disease faster than the population can grow.

Same with Africa, except they have a scarcity of food, water, and medicine. In that case, there's even a good chance that higher population may eventually serve as a tipping point to spread disease faster than the population can grow.

That's not a good chance, that's a well known issue. The African population without AIDS deaths would be about 35% higher and growing even faster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Life_expectancy_in_some_Southern_African_cou ntries_1958_to_2003.png

Right, we know it's suppressing growth now. That's not what I was talking about.

Now throw in the average BMI of an American and we throw those numbers off all together with regards to population, we are three times the size of other humans, and an average American consumes three times the food say some one in a third world country does...make a new chart! I think over time we'll just eat other humans. We need our food and OIL!


Disclaimer: My data was dreamed up in my head.

I wonder if we could convert humans into biofuel!

I wonder if we could convert humans into biofuel!

that made me think of soylent green.