News Population hitting 7 billion

[george7378]

In 5 days time, the world population is expected to reach the 7 billion mark. A historic occasion?

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

I remember looking at this in Geography a couple of years back, and wondering when it would get there. It should be October the 31st.

 

[_Designer_]

Can you imagine all the physics behind all that to get that accurate calculation? wow!

 

[george7378]

Well no, of course it's not accurate, but it's the best thing we have, so what else is there to determine when it will happen?

 

[_Designer_]

A long formula of range, median, mode and mean

best accurate way, simply (not really simple) is get the range of people born within a day for every state, providence, territory, continent, etc. figure out the median and through all the data collected, run the mean formula (the number of data collected divided by the collected data added together) and from there could be the answer to how many of what happens a day, such as births, deaths, etc.

 

[T.Neo]

Oh my, seven billion people, how scary. :uhh:

There are over a billion more people on this planet than there were when I was born.

It really makes me wonder about the age curve of humanity as a whole...

 

[Ark]

The scariest part of this is that all the population growth is taking place in areas that already couldn't feed everybody. The people having litters of kids are the ones least economically able to support them. Meanwhile, birth rates in the developed countries continue to decline.

It's the Idiocracy theorem in action. The poor and uneducated will have ever greater numbers of children until there is nobody left but the poor and uneducated.

Before you call me out on it, yes I understand that large families have as much to do with a desire for retirement security than they do with basic ignorance and desire to .

 

[agentgonzo]

The people having litters of kids are the ones least economically able to support them.

You've actually got this a bit backwards. In the really poor developing nations, people need to have larger families in order to look after them when they get old. It's much easier for 5-10 brothers/sisters to look after their two parents than it is one only-child when the parents get too old to look after themselves. Plus you need the children to go and collect water/do farming etc when they are old enough to do it (about 4 years or so). It's very easy to forget about those who do not even have the concept of money and have to collect water and grow food every day of their lives from our oppulent lifestyles as we type on the internet.

 

[Jarvitä]

The scariest part of this is that all the population growth is taking place in areas that already couldn't feed everybody. The people having litters of kids are the ones least economically able to support them.

Which makes perfect sense in terms of evolutionary psychology. More children means a higher probability at least some will survive. If you want it to stop, the only choice is for the civilised world to stop feeding them and start educating them. Of course, it won't be pretty (think Dachau times the population of Africa), but the population control nuts will get to see a decline and congratulate themselves.

 

[jedidia]

It's the Idiocracy theorem in action. The poor and uneducated will have ever greater numbers of children until there is nobody left but the poor and uneducated.

It's not quite so. Fact is, the poor and the uneducated NEED larger families to survive. A large community can share resources better than a small one. It might be hard to imagine for the individualist west, but there are lots of places in the world where three generations of a family pour all their resources into the same pool, and live under the same roof. It works more or less, but it works better than everyone trying to make a living on his own under their circumstances.

The wealthy and educated usually don't have that many kids because they can live without them, and because they want more personal freedom (I'm included here, of course). And because they go crazy when they have to live under the same roof with their in-laws for more than a week... :lol:

Oh, Ninja'd by AgentGonzo...

Before you call me out on it, yes I understand that large families have as much to do with a desire for retirement security than they do with basic ignorance and desire to .

Plus, birth control is NOT cheap when your months salary is less than we earn in day in switzerland...

 

[Ark]

You've actually got this a bit backwards. In the really poor developing nations, people need to have larger families in order to look after them when they get old. It's much easier for 5-10 brothers/sisters to look after their two parents than it is one only-child when the parents get too old to look after themselves. Plus you need the children to go and collect water/do farming etc when they are old enough to do it (about 4 years or so). It's very easy to forget about those who do not even have the concept of money and have to collect water and grow food every day of their lives from our oppulent lifestyles as we type on the internet.

True. I guess it's a chicken-and-egg thing, you need lower population growth to ease the resource crunch, but lack of resources and economic prosperity means you need larger families.

Not so different from the US a hundred years ago. Nowadays we have things like Social Security and 401ks (when they aren't being tanked by the market or raided by corporations) that allow people to enjoy old age without being entirely dependent on family.




---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 AM ----------

Plus, birth control is NOT cheap when your months salary is less than we earn in day in switzerland...

Is there a charity I can give my money to that distributes free birth control to impoverished areas? I'd be on board with that.

 

[RisingFury]

This thing doesn't have an error estimate? It's worthless.

 

[T.Neo]

the only choice is for the civilised world to stop feeding them and start educating them. Of course, it won't be pretty (think Dachau times the population of Africa

Do you actually have any idea of how many Africans are not fed by your 'villain' of food aid?

(Also, if you seriously talk about starving everyone, good luck educating them- generally skeletons, whether alive or dead, cannot educate themselves.)

 

[statickid]

hmm chances are we got 7 billion today maybe? or yeah, what IS the error on this? +/- 9 seconds?

 

[Jarvitä]

Do you actually have any idea of how many Africans are not fed by your 'villain' of food aid?

I'm not saying food aid is bad. I'm saying it's what keeps the population growth stable in Africa. I'm in favour of that. Some, apparently aren't.

 

[T.Neo]

I'm not saying food aid is bad. I'm saying it's what keeps the population growth stable in Africa. I'm in favour of that. Some, apparently aren't.

Yes, because you clearly don't care about the quality of life those people lead in Africa, just that they aimlessly make more of themselves. You don't care about what that society is like, or whether those communities are healthy. Or apparently even whether the people are healthy, or that they shouldn't have to fear for their own lives.

Also: it is unsustainable. In the most literal sense of the word. You don't think so? Come to Africa. Here we have reality, not magic.

And our reality is often bitter.

 

[Linguofreak]

True. I guess it's a chicken-and-egg thing, you need lower population growth to ease the resource crunch, but lack of resources and economic prosperity means you need larger families.

The thing is, much of the resource crunch in developing nations comes from political instability rather than actual lack of resources. In such situations, where circumstances prevent efficient gathering of resources, but the resources themselves do exist, more people means more people to gather resources. The biggest problem with large numbers of children, then, is supporting them while they're too young to work. Then again, notions of "too young" are quite different in such situations than in our culture.

Not so different from the US a hundred years ago. Nowadays we have things like Social Security and 401ks (when they aren't being tanked by the market or raided by corporations) that allow people to enjoy old age without being entirely dependent on family.

The thing with Social Security is that it just hides the dependence on larger families ("The government will pay for my retirement. Why do I need to have a large family?") and spreads it out, as each generation pays for the one before it. So now, instead of being dependent on having a large family yourself to be taken care of in your old age, you're dependent on everyone else in the nation having a large family. The Baby Boomers' parents did fine. The Baby Boomers themselves are in trouble. (Of course, the government having, at times, taken money out of the Social Security trust fund to pay other government expenses hasn't helped either).

 

[jedidia]

Is there a charity I can give my money to that distributes free birth control to impoverished areas? I'd be on board with that.

I don't know of any programs from the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure there are. The problem is that you have to choose locations for such a programe very carefully. It's utter nonsense in impoverished rural areas, as these people need the hands (plus it's absolutely impossible to motivate them to have less kids). Most probable targets would be impoverished urban areas, and the initiative would probably be coupled with employment and educational programes.

Also, HIV-prevention programs in Africa probably come pretty close.

 

[T.Neo]

Also, you might get into some difficulties from the Catholic Church...

A condom distribution/education program would help prevent both unplanned pregnancies and HIV transmission.

But ultimately the solution is education and development. The problem however, is that you now shift the growth from number of people, to the demands of the people.

 

[Artlav]

The scariest thing is, i seem to remember the day when we crossed 6 billion, and i'm not exactly old.

It's the Idiocracy theorem in action. The poor and uneducated will have ever greater numbers of children until there is nobody left but the poor and uneducated.

That is based on the false assumption that poor and uneducated bear only poor and uneducated.

 

[Keatah]

The scariest thing is, i seem to remember the day when we crossed 6 billion, and i'm not exactly old.

That is based on the false assumption that poor and uneducated bear only poor and uneducated.

Not really, the poor and uneducated have babies just like everybody else, including the rich and educated.

The poor and uneducated are generally left by the wayside and not permitted to transfer to the rich and educated sections.

7-billion, IMHO, is nothing. Look at 10 years from now! Or even 5 years! Humanity is a cancer upon the face of the earth. 99.9999%, or more, of them are completely worthless.