How Many People Share Our World?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rootX
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of global population growth, with participants reflecting on personal experiences related to their place in the world's population. The conversation highlights concerns about overpopulation, sustainability, and the economic feasibility of supporting a growing number of people. Various viewpoints emerge regarding potential solutions, such as implementing a two-child policy, improving education, and addressing root causes of high birth rates in developing countries. Participants debate the effectiveness of financial incentives versus education in reducing birth rates and express skepticism about the practicality of controlling population growth through government intervention. The dialogue also touches on the distribution of resources, the impact of poverty on family size, and the need for efficient resource utilization to support future populations. Overall, there is a consensus that while population growth poses challenges, solutions must consider both ethical implications and the complexities of socioeconomic factors.
rootX
478
4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15391515

My results:
You were the 5,087,705,009th person
Your country's population is 34,016,593
Average life expectancy is 78.2 years

262 people (,I don't know what 262 means)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rootX said:
262 people (,I don't know what 262 means)
It says "the amount the population has grown while you've been on this site"And you are a fellow Canuck.
 
When I were born, I was the:

3,233,157,102nd
person alive on Earth

77,058,447,815th
person to have lived since history began

I feel like a number.
 
The number of significant figures they provide is hilarious.
 
lisab said:
I feel like a number.

Me too!

.. and that made me bit sad :shy:
 
This video by National Geographic is very good. Overpopulation, it's not about the space. We can't economically/feasably sustain this many people. Think about it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Greg Bernhardt said:
World cap of two children a family. Problem solved.

I only had one. Can I sell my other share :biggrin:?
 
  • #10
lisab said:
I only had one. Can I sell my other share :biggrin:?

I had none*. Can I get a refund?

*biologically, anyway
 
  • #11
DaveC426913 said:
I had none*. Can I get a refund?

*biologically, anyway
You make up for the sperm donor that has over 1,000 kids.
 
  • #12
lisab said:
I only had one. Can I sell my other share :biggrin:?

Those who have 1 or no children get $20,000. Right now it's the other way around, the more babies you have, the more money you get (in the US).
 
  • #13
Evo said:
You make up for the sperm donor that has over 1,000 kids.
Hrm. Not sure if that math works out.

Interesting problem...

As long as the mother has only one child by sperm donor, then the numbers work out.

With 1 man and 1000 women, you get 1000 children.
If he donates 1 million, you get 1 million children. But you never get more children than parents.
 
  • #14
DaveC426913 said:
Hrm. Not sure if that math works out.

Interesting problem...

As long as the mother has only one child by sperm donor, then the numbers work out.

With 1 man and 1000 women, you get 1000 children.
If he donates 1 million, you get 1 million children. But you never get more children than parents.
A lot of these women, for some reason, already had kids, sometimes several. And no, I'm not going to go dig up everything I've read in the last few years on artificial insemination stats, I don't understand why a woman with children would need to artificially have more. Look at octomom. So consider it unreliable.
 
  • #15
Greg Bernhardt said:
Those who have 1 or no children get $20,000. Right now it's the other way around, the more babies you have, the more money you get (in the US).
Yeah, this is something that needs to be fixed.
 
  • #16
Greg Bernhardt said:
Those who have 1 or no children get $20,000. Right now it's the other way around, the more babies you have, the more money you get (in the US).

It's not the US but the third world countries that concern me. I doubt you can put any kind of caps on them.
 
  • #17
rootX said:
It's not the US but the third world countries that concern me. I doubt you can put any kind of caps on them.
What do you think they'd do if you offered them $20,000?
 
  • #18
DaveC426913 said:
What do you think they'd do if you offered them $20,000?

If some "government" had that much of free money, 7 billion population wouldn't have been a concern.
 
  • #19
And no having triplets either.
 
  • #21
How do they determine the order of birth on a specific day? It didn't ask for time of birth, and I wasn't the only male born in the US on 11/11/1983.

Edit: Nevermind, just found this; "It is one possible value based on global population figures and estimates of growth rates over time."
 
Last edited:
  • #22
When you were born, you were the:
3,080,736,737th
person alive on Earth
76,771,155,855th
person to have lived since history began

The average life expectancy is about 13 years longer here in the U.S. since the last time I glanced at that statistic!
 
  • #23
Greg Bernhardt said:
World cap of two children a family. Problem solved.
Not really. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/chinas-one-child-rule-turns-time-bomb-223258406.html"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
dipungal said:
Not really. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/chinas-one-child-rule-turns-time-bomb-223258406.html"
When you cut back on new births, of course there is going to be basicaly a *one time* period where there will be a large elderly population, then things will normalize and be for the benefit of all.

In the US we are about to enter that phase as we had a *baby boom* after WWII, and then the population began to normalize, the baby boomers are now approaching retirement. After the baby boomers are gone, there will no longer be a disproportionate elderly population. Sometimes you have to suffer a bit to get better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
Evo said:
When you cut back on new births, of course there is going to be basicaly a *one time* period where there will be a large elderly population, then things will normalize and be for the benefit of all.

In the US we are about to enter that phase as we had a *baby boom* after WWII, and then the population began to normalize, the baby boomers are now approaching retirement. After the baby boomers are gone, there will no longer be a disproportionate elderly population. Sometimes you have to suffer a bit to get better.
But the problem is sometimes when we fix one thing, we break three more.
 
  • #26
dipungal said:
But the problem is sometimes when we fix one thing, we break three more.
Once the elderly *hump* is over things will improve. But only if the laws are not abused.
 
  • #27
rootX said:
It's not the US but the third world countries that concern me. I doubt you can put any kind of caps on them.

With the exception of sub-saharan africa all third world countries have declining birth rates. Brazil for example got smaller birth rates than the US.
Although third world is a terrible term since it includes both countries like Brazil and countries like Somalia.
 
  • #28
Evo said:
When you cut back on new births, of course there is going to be basicaly a *one time* period where there will be a large elderly population, then things will normalize and be for the benefit of all.
Are you advocating abortion and mandatory birth control?
 
  • #29
Evo said:
When you cut back on new births, of course there is going to be basicaly a *one time* period where there will be a large elderly population, then things will normalize and be for the benefit of all.

In the US we are about to enter that phase as we had a *baby boom* after WWII, and then the population began to normalize, the baby boomers are now approaching retirement. After the baby boomers are gone, there will no longer be a disproportionate elderly population. Sometimes you have to suffer a bit to get better.

dipungal said:
Are you advocating abortion and mandatory birth control?

"Cutting back on new births" through either "abortion-mandatory birth control" or "financial incentives" etc only work out theoretically but not in practice IMO.

I think it is too hard to control the world's population. Further that if something that can control the population is either nature or widespread education. It might be unacceptable or too harsh but I think cutting down on humanitarian missions and funding to poor nations might bring our global population to the level that we can sustain.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
dipungal said:
Are you advocating abortion and mandatory birth control?

Her statement does not advocate that, no. Benefit of the doubt suggests she was simply speaking matter-of-factly.

However, that does not mean she won't subsequently offer her opinion explicitly.
 
  • #32
DaveC426913 said:
Her statement does not advocate that, no. Benefit of the doubt suggests she was simply speaking matter-of-factly.

However, that does not mean she won't subsequently offer her opinion explicitly.
Factly? We do not know what population the Earth is capable of supporting, do we?
 
  • #33
rootX said:
It might be unacceptable or too harsh but I think cutting down on humanitarian missions and funding to poor nations might bring our global population to the level that we can sustain.

what do you mean ,how can that help?
One of the reasons why poor people have more children especially in the third world countries is because there ,the infant mortality rates are high due to lack of basic health care,so people tend to have more children as an insurance policy.There are also other reasons like they will keep having children until they get a male child(women/girl-child are severely discriminated).
If the living conditions improve and education is in place then people will have less children and that can bring down birth rates.
 
  • #35
If you want to reduce the population growth rate, then you need to attack the root of the problem. Education indirectly reduces birthrates. Get everyone smarter and the problem will fix itself.
 
  • #36
Wow, were are already up to 7 billion?

Someone needs to invent a food replicator like on Star Trek and we'll be fine.

"Earl grey, hot" :)
 
  • #37
leroyjenkens said:
If you want to reduce the population growth rate, then you need to attack the root of the problem. Education indirectly reduces birthrates. Get everyone smarter and the problem will fix itself.
Actually, I think the root of the problem lies elsewhere.
 
  • #38
The US isn't the one with the population growth problem. Its the industrial countries...
Lets hope they stabalize soon.

Or maybe we should hope that they don't, and we are forced to populate the solar system...
 
  • #39
GregJ said:
Wow, were are already up to 7 billion?

Someone needs to invent a food replicator like on Star Trek and we'll be fine.

"Earl grey, hot" :)

Actually, the UN count seems to be a little off. They have a lot more people living in California than the US Census does.
 
  • #40
shashankac655 said:
what do you mean ,how can that help?
If you don't control the population artificially (that is not aiding poor countries to sustain population that they otherwise cannot), population will decrease to the desired level. So, every country will have number of people that it is capable of supporting. I also support education because that doesn't fall under artificial means of controlling population.

One of the reasons why poor people have more children especially in the third world countries is because there ,the infant mortality rates are high due to lack of basic health care,so people tend to have more children as an insurance policy.
That doesn't tell why they have high population growth rate. Population growth rate accounts for the deaths:
The average annual percent change in the population, resulting from a surplus (or deficit) of births over deaths and the balance of migrants entering and leaving a country.
from cia.

There are also other reasons like they will keep having children until they get a male child(women/girl-child are severely discriminated).
Yes, those other reasons explain why they tend to how more children. Mortality rate is not the main reason.
 
  • #41
1mmorta1 said:
The US isn't the one with the population growth problem. Its the industrial countries...

How about the recently industrialized countries?

Nature has a way of finding its own balance. Regardless of the species, when it comes to population, that usually involves a sizable minority of them suffering from starvation and disease. Given significant changes in the environment, that minority can rise to a majority.
 
  • #42
Personally, I don't see how anyone dares to advocate any kind of population limitations without first maximizing the efficiency of resource-utilization. Anyone is free to have as few children as they want, but what right do they have to suggest other people have less kids?
 
  • #43
rootX said:
If you don't control the population artificially (that is not aiding poor countries to sustain population that they otherwise cannot), population will decrease to the desired level. So, every country will have number of people that it is capable of supporting. I also support education because that doesn't fall under artificial means of controlling population.


That doesn't tell why they have high population growth rate. Population growth rate accounts for the deaths:
from cia.


Yes, those other reasons explain why they tend to how more children. Mortality rate is not the main reason.

No, actually it doesn't work that way. That aid is not aid that is meant to increase the population or sustain it, it just about not letting them starve to death.You yourself said that education can help ,remember that the poor people don't have education so whether or not you give them aid ,whether or not they have what it takes to raise a lot of children ,they will have children ,since they are uneducated they don't educate their children as well , they don't know the importance of education.

Why is it that only poor countries have high birth rates? because poor people don't know that they have to provide education and all other facilities to their children,a middle class family won't have so many children because they know that it very difficult and expensive to provide education and other things to their children.
I know this because i am from a country which faces these problems ,i read some where that every year in the world ,8 million children die from diseases which are preventable(2 million in India),mostly north India which has the poorest states,majority of the India's population growth comes from these poor states,some other states are near replacement fertility.

“More than 300 million Indians earn less than US $1 everyday and about 130 million people are jobless.” The people, who have to struggle to make two ends meet produce more children because more children mean more earning hands.Also, due to poverty, the infant mortality rate among such families is higher due to the lack of facilities like food and medical resources. Thus, they produce more children assuming that not all of them would be able to survive.
 
  • #44
This web page has a graph showing that there are an estimated 950 million malnourished people in the world in 2010.
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm"
The graph also shows an estimated 875 malnourished people in 1969. Am I reading it correctly? But the population was much different in 1969. Here is a web page with a graph that shows the world population in 1969 to be 3.6 billion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_history.svg"
In other words, there are 3.4 billion more people now than 42 years ago, nearly double, but hardly any increase in estimated hunger. What do you make of it? Does it mean anything at all?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
Jimmy Snyder said:
This web page has a graph showing that there are an estimated 950 million malnourished people in the world in 2010.
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm"
The graph also shows an estimated 875 malnourished people in 1969. Am I reading it correctly? But the population was much different in 1969. Here is a web page with a graph that shows the world population in 1969 to be 3.6 billion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_history.svg"
In other words, there are 3.4 billion more people now than 42 years ago, nearly double, but hardly any increase in estimated hunger. What do you make of it? Does it mean anything at all?
Because we're feeding them.

The ability of the world to feed itself has improved dramatically over the last three decades. Intensive agriculture and new crop varieties have fueled steadily increasing per capita food production. Decreasing world food prices have made food more available to a greater number of people. In 1975, approximately one in three people in developing countries was underfed; today, the number of underfed has dropped to onein five.

The long-term sustainability of this progress, however, is increasingly at risk. Advances in major crop yields, such as wheat and rice, have slowed. The intensive use of land and water, which brought major production increases, now brings growing environmental costs. And most significantly, world population continues to grow at the rate of nearly 100 million people per year--mostly in the developing world.

Though millions have benefited from the world's agricultural progress, the
distribution of global food supplies is very uneven, with hunger still prevalent in someregions of the world, particularly South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

The challenge of world hunger in the 1990s is real: 800 million people are chronically undernourished. More than 180 million children around the world are severely underweight. 13 million people die every year from hunger and related causes (mostly children under age 5). An estimated 35 million people "at risk" needed 4.5 million tons of emergency food assistance in 1994. Most hunger is still found in rural areas--large regions of persistent poverty, such as the Horn of Africa, where development has failed and fragile ecosystems and civil strife combine to keep hunger alive. Rapid urbanization has also drawn growing numbers of rural poor who have little or no access to jobs and are therefore unable to feed their families.

page 7 http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/foodsec/foodsec.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
Evo said:
Because we're feeding them.
As long as we continue to feed them, they will continue to have babies. Since I find it morally objectionable to prevent them from having babies, would it be ok if we stop feeding them? That will certainly ease my conscience.
 
  • #47
Jimmy Snyder said:
This web page has a graph showing that there are an estimated 950 million malnourished people in the world in 2010.
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm"
The graph also shows an estimated 875 malnourished people in 1969. Am I reading it correctly? But the population was much different in 1969. Here is a web page with a graph that shows the world population in 1969 to be 3.6 billion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_history.svg"
In other words, there are 3.4 billion more people now than 42 years ago, nearly double, but hardly any increase in estimated hunger. What do you make of it? Does it mean anything at all?
Dig a little deeper. You'll be tapping into the heart of population concerns: greed . . . or possibly naive materialistic consumerism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
dipungal said:
Dig a little deeper. You'll be tapping into the heart of population concerns: greed . . . or possibly naive materialistic consumerism.
That thought had occurred to me. We're into the third century of this crisis if you start counting with Malthus. The solutions seem worse than the problem.
 
  • #49
dipungal said:
Personally, I don't see how anyone dares to advocate any kind of population limitations without first maximizing the efficiency of resource-utilization. Anyone is free to have as few children as they want, but what right do they have to suggest other people have less kids?

From a practical standpoint, maximizing efficiency only to worry about limiting population when we're reaching the limit puts billions of people into vary precarious positions. Think of how much nicer our world would be without overcrowding!

On the other hand, I believe children are a real blessing, and do not like the idea of depriving parents of that blessing. Nevertheless, how much blessing do parents need?
 
  • #50
DoggerDan said:
Think of how much nicer our world would be without overcrowding!
Overcrowding? A tiny fraction of the Earth's surface is populated.
 
Back
Top