I was born in 1951. So I remember walking into public places and not having to stand in line.
We were so innocent then. Things changed quickly in my town, which soon became a city, with one person ahead of you in line suddenly becoming 5 people, or 50 people. Changing attitudes about customer services contributed, too, as did many the tech companies that moved to the U.S. sun belt, bringing their employees. Now – in the same town where I’ve lived all these decades – we all wait more or less patiently in line everywhere, in banks, stores, movie theaters, airports, to straighten out your cell phone bill or just to buy a hot dog at the park. For me, the phenomenon of standing in lines is a personal marker of population growth – a powerful remembered contrast from the 1950s and 60s.
In the 1960s, Earth had only 3 billion inhabitants. Now global population numbers are on track to reach 7 billion in 2011, just 12 years after reaching 6 billion in 1999, according to the Population Reference Bureau of Washington D.C.
Have you experienced a shift in population where you live? Do you have personal memories of a less populated world?
If you do, maybe you wonder what ordinary things around us will change in ways we don’t expect, as more and more people come to inhabit the Earth. True, U.S. population isn’t expected to grow as much as other places on the planet. The most growth is expected in Africa and Asia, where three-quarters of the world’s current population already live.
Our human population is growing larger. And, according to a recent article by Robert Engelman of the Worldwatch Institute, the population growth rate has held steady in recent years. That sounds like a good thing, but it may not be. This steady growth has surprised demographers, who’d been expecting the rate of growth to decrease. According to Engelman, some population experts are now wondering if an often-cited number – 9 billion people by the year 2050 – is big enough.
Prior to this – during the 1990s – the rate of population growth was decreasing. We have these ‘rate of’ conversations in our office frequently, because they can be confusing. It’s not that there are fewer people being born – not at all. We’re talking about a growth rate, that is, the rate at which new humans are being added to the planet’s total population each year. That rate was decreasing. Now it’s not. Engleman says that, in the 1990s, the number of new humans added to global population each year fell from nearly 90 million people to less than 80 million. Since 1999, however, the number has fallen to only about 79 million people added to Earth’s total population each year. So you can see that rate of population growth has been more or less constant in this century, contrary to the expectations of demographers.
The most often quoted population number of 9 billion by 2050 comes from the United Nations Population Division. As Engleman points out in his article, the U.N. doesn’t predict. Instead, it projects, or makes conditional assessments based on current population numbers, age structure of humans around the world, and trends and reasonable assumptions about the future. These U.N. projections suggest a range for global population in 2050, from slightly less than 8 billion to slightly more than 11 billion. Now it sounds to me as if Engelman is suggesting that we may be headed for the higher end of that range, rather than the lower end.
Engelman believes there are two population-related trends that may be related to the current growth rates . First, he says, global assistance for family planning services – contraceptives plus information on how to use them safely and effectively – in poor countries is falling significantly. Second, ironically, there have been major boosts in recent years among the largest health donors in spending to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic. I’ll leave it to you to contemplate the connection of these two trends with the leveling off of population growth rates, or you can read more in Engelman’s article.
Meanwhile, the Danish Aging Research Center at the University of Southern Denmark just announced a study suggesting that most babies born today will live 100 years. I don’t know enough about the U.N. studies to know how often they re-calculate their projections or how recent their longevity data are, but the wildcard of humans living longer also seems important, to say the least.
Today, according to the U.S. Census Bureau population clocks we human souls number 6,788,426,733. I checked this number several times while writing this post, and it’s shocking to see how fast it changes. Go ahead. Check it for yourself now. That’s because, according to WikiAnswers, there are 255 babies born every minute in the world.
WikiAnswers used population data from 2007 to calculate their babies/minute rate. Due to the leveling out of population growth in the past several years … it’s likely that rate still stands.
If I live to be 100, I’ll make it to the year 2050. I have to admit, I’m very very curious about what the world will be like then, and committed to learning as much as I can about the intricacies of our burgeoning human population on this little Earth.
Every species, except possibly us, will reproduce until it runs up against a limiting factor. If there is no predation or disease, that limit may be access to food or to light. People have the ability to adapt, and to adapt food (by breeding) and environments to our needs. We also know how to limit reproduction. This may make a difference.
In any case, we’re going to run up against a limit of some sort, either self-imposed or natural. It would be better to plan for this and put the brakes on ourselves rather than wait for a global plague or famine.
The population clock was a startling look at the rate of population growth on the planet. The population increase does not reflect the challenges that this type of growth puts on our planet and its natural resources. What an eye-opener.
Claudia and Jonathan, the population clock is amazing, isn’t it? I had it open in a tab while writing this post, and I was watching that number climb. Whoa.
I often hear people say that technology will save us from a limiting factor. And so it may, in this century. I hope so. But it stands to reason that – eventually – there will be some number of humans on Earth that the planet can’t support. Will that be 7 billion people – the population number projected for 2011? Can the planet support 9 billion? 10? 20? 100 billion? Obviously there is some limit. We just don’t know where that limit is.
Absolutely agree that we will run up against some sort of limiting factor and that we should put on the breaks ourselves. Consider this (according to A. Bartlett):
At present rates of population growth of 1.3%, we would have one human being on each square meter of land on this planet in just about 780 years.
Obviously, this is not going to happen as the carrying capacity of this planet and an unbearable level of discomfort will be reached long before we get to this density.
Either we find a way to stop population growth or mother? nature will take care of the problem for us. This is a fact, whether we like it or not: popuation growth rates will drop to ZERO (and possibly below for a certain period).
what if the surface of the moon could be colonized to a exstent after 780 years if Luna and earths land surface are added together then how many people would the population density be. casue we could also have people on Mars. after the breakthough in hyperfusion space travel thats projected in 2022 a voyage to mars could be made in only 3 months.
what is the carrying capacity of the inner planets and there moons?
Even the UN predicts more than 9 billion by 2050 and always their predictions are upwards if we learn from history and where they have always calculated ‘Low’. We have been saying for nearly 20-years now that the world population may be above 10 billion by 2050 and even 12.5 billion is not unatainable looking at the inner growth trends around the world. Therefore whatever the lowest figure may be, we as humans, have probably more unsolvable problems in this century than any other. Indeed, add population growth with natural resources depleton, the only answer may lie in anothe global war. unfortunately this time, there will be no winners. But why should it be this way, when some of the world’s leading scientific lights have agreed that the only solution is to build the vast ORE-STEM complex for humanity. Someone must be right ?
Dr David Hill
World Innovation Foundation
Bern, Switzerland
Dr. Hill, thank you for commenting. Can you tell us more about ORE-STEM? I had not heard of it before this …
First, I would pay no attention to anything the UN says or publishes.
The earth with no change in tehnology will support considerably more than 9 billion people. We , like all other animal populations will respond to the bounds of our habitat. Our biggest problem is the government’s subsidizing of primitive cultures, effectively encouraging increases in the populations of folks that cannot care for themselves right now. That, while stifling the development of the productive classes through regulation and tax.
Right now, every person on earth could be placed in Texas. There is plenty of room, and plenty of resources. The allocation of these resources is the problem. And that is not looking good for a fix anytime soon.
If history is any predictor, there will be another (probably natural) disaster such as the volcanic eruption around 75,000 years ago and we won’t have any of this to worry about. Humanity will once more struggle to maintain existance.
Our problems are not technical in nature, they are political and economic.
Hummm…..Granted, Texas is big, but not THAT big. I live in Central Texas, and it seems that a large portion of the state is involved in industries such as oil, gas, and mineral production, farming, fishing, ranching, and such. Exporting is a major commercial business for Texas. I really doubt that the entire population of the world would fit into Texas in such a way and still allow for the production and cultivation of vital resources. Sounds a bit elitist to think the problem is government subsidies of primitive cultures. And how does one define “primitive” – we or them?
It appears to me that the family of humanity is about to confront some unimaginably horrendous sort of colossal and complicated human-forced tragedy. A species like Homo sapiens simply cannot exist much longer by living without regard to human limits and Earth’s limitations because our planetary home is finite and frangible, and the human species is an integral part of the biophysical world we inhabit. Because the Earth is round and has distinctly recognizable boundaries, the gigantic current scale and fully anticipated global growth rate of human overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities could soon become patently unsustainable on a planet with size, composition and ecology of Earth.
Most problematic of all is the realization that much of the human activity on Earth we see today that is intended to mitigate deleterious impacts on Earth’s body and its environs from human actions are actually making bad matters worse….and doing so fast.
Perhaps an alternative will be found to the astonishingly unrealistic and woefully misguided belief of many too many weathy and powerful Masters of the Universe among us that the human family can outgrow the human-induced global threats to human wellbeing and environmental health that are being precipitated by our unbridled growth of unrestricted production, unchecked consumption and unregulated propagation. Holding fast to the idea that human beings can outgrow growth-driven global threats, ones directly derived from our global overgrowth activities, could lead us and the children down a “primrose path” to some kind of worldwide catastrophe, the likes of which only Ozymandias has seen.
The subject of increased longevity for individuals in developing countries – over the decades of the 21st century – may be especially relevant here.
The ORE-STEM is a global centre of innovation excellence that allows not just the so-called elite of the scientific establishment to participate, but the whole of the world. It would be the biggest incubator and capacitator of creative thought and knowledge ever seen. Indeed, to put this into perspective its purpose would solely be to solve humankind’s long-term sustainability problems. Not based upon the creation of vast wealth for the few as the world is now founded (and where most of our vast problems emerge), but in the harmony of nations combining their strengths and knowledge together. With its ORE-Incubators spread like tentacles around the world, the ORE-STEM would harness every bit of human creativity in the endeavour of sustaining the human experience for millenniums to come. For without harnessing the creative power of all humankind we are literally despatched to extinction in this century. The reason, our problems are so huge and in many ways presently insurmountable that this is the only thing that will eventually come to pass as we presently stand. Governments are not doing what they should because predominantly all politicians and leaders are nationalistic in their thinking, providing for just themselves and not addressing the ‘big’ global picture. Global problems require global mechanisms, not national mechanisms.
This system that would basically save our species from extinction in this present century would cost some US$120 billion over a 15-year term to build, a mere fraction of what the global banking collapse has cost the world but where we would have then something that really could sustain human progress. For one thing that the history of the world has shown us is that around 75% of all the inventions that have made the modern world what it is today did not come from our advanced centres of research and universities, but from the lone inventor who made things possible with new ‘light’ that others could not see, not even those who were considered to be the wisest at the time. The ORE-STEM would allow these voices to be heard and where their thinking would provide the tools. But politicians around the world are ‘blind’ to new revolutionary ideas that would not just save the planet, but indeed themselves. At the heart of this ‘blindness’ is the ones who advise them, more interested in themselves than allowing innovation and creativity to flourish – to them a great threat to their very standing and positions (or self-interest in other words). That is what we have to fight for they are the misguided gate-keepers of the political classes and where great change is their greatest threat but for humankind its basic salvation.
Dr David Hill
Executive Director
World Innovation Foundation Charity
Bern, Switzerland
Quote; At the heart of this ‘blindness’ is the ones who advise them, more interested in themselves than allowing innovation and creativity to flourish – to them a great threat to their very standing and positions (or self-interest in other words). That is what we have to fight for they are the misguided gate-keepers of the political classes and where great change is their greatest threat but for humankind its basic salvation.
Dr David Hill
When you say ‘those that advise them’,Do you mean The CFR,Trilateral group and the Bildibergers ? All of those seem to be directing political traffic. It seems this country does not listen to the people anymore its Wall street and Goldman Sachs.The Federal reserve, IMF, They have infiltrated all of Washington and have taken it global.
It also seems to me, that a lot of Scientists get shutdown or lose funding if they do not go along with the mainstream thought,Universities and Academia will not cover their material or publish it…Similar to mainstream media on anything that could be true ,no investigation just attack the individual and demonise them with no decency or open mindedness because of its “political ramifications”.
The most misconstrued science ever, has to do with the Twin Towers in New york, The government enlists the aid of poular mechanics and NIST to do the most bogus testing and research(if you can call it that) to try to show how kerosene could freefall a skyscraper.
It was that day in infamy,that 50% of the population quit trusting science, scientists and anybody in washington or on Wall street,Mainstrem media on and on and on.
The military is always at least 25 years ahead on what the civilian population receives. Our country and many others could have done something ages ago to straighten all this out,including the UN.
Humans were shown how to grow crops back in the Sumerian times (at least according to the stone tablets)of which many have not even been decipherd
to this day for politics and yet not enough food after all this time and land on the planet?
like Egyptologists that say the pyramids were built with copper tools… LOL ok
Black ops,DOD stealing trillions that disappear with no accountability,Manufactured swine flu with vaccine makers not liable for ANYTHING that may happen after taking it.,Chemtrails,plenty of barium and aluminum oxide floating around the skies.
Morgellons disease the CDC and WHO will not even acknowledge. Its easier to tell the victims they are just crazy.
Vaccines with mercury and Squalene. Merck admitting they hired hit men,Baxter dumping bad vaccines on other countries in full knowledge they were flawed and deadly dangerous… Those are just a few Pharmas the list is deep.
Monsantos great lobbying power and money, crushing the common family farmers.hundreds in India, Shafted by bad crops and failure of results of crops so bad they commited suicide
Gm crops, Aspartame,MSG..Donald Rumsfeld and Aspartame .A great corruption story …..wow lets go eat some poison. States have tried to ban it and lost. sad, sad,sad.
Jay Rockefeller, says the internet is dangerous we need to kill it…
On and On and On
I am very appreciative of the Scientists and researchers. Do you know over one hundred microbiologists have died in the last ten years ? Many under strange circumstances. One just recently at the UN of all places … somebody helped him down the stairs..hum.I cannot say enough how I,appreciate all of you trying to help humanity,the Earth, The Sky the enviroment around us.There are thousands upon thousands of you guy`s diligently working to improve everything and teaching us the common people with your knowledge but those handlers(advisers) are working against us….All of us. Smoke and mirrors.
The one thing I have learned is, that even after 52 years I,know nothing at all.Everything just leads to more questions and our government
does not like to answer questions from “we the people” now if you question the administration you are a heretic,racist,truther,birther, its all keywords to affect the psych controlled by the mass conglomerate media.
Thanks, for your unending diligent work people,Earthsky all the scientists worldwide for helping me to expand my mind,in turn helping others.it keeps me having some faith but I feel,It is going to be one heck of a fight .
When truth triumphs over all the lies and coverups, true freedom will be for all people. It is only very few that control the planet but they have all the weapons,money and political clout to snuff anything or anybody including true scientific facts.
Not one to make predictions but the planet, is infiltrated by so much corruption…Me thinks there is no turning back.
Appreciate your time and insight always.