A quick look at population growth

[GliderGuider]

There is a lot of misunderstanding about human population growth. In particular, a quasi-religious belief system has sprung up around the idea that the global population growth rate has been declining recently. This is seen as a positive development, based on the salvationist idea that this decline in the growth rate will soon translate into a decline in our absolute numbers. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this is happening, at least on a global scale. Here are three graphics which illustrate that point in various ways.


[center]
Population growth rates are inextricably tied to technology ,
specifically the dominant technologies of energy extraction.



The world's net annual population increase since the Neolithic Age.
The world's absolute population growth is currently about as high as it has ever been throughout history.



Every year since 1980, the world's population has increased by about 78 million.
That's as much as another Germany every year.[/center]

Best wishes for de-growth, but don’t get your hopes up.
to hatrack. I mentioned it...

[marym625]

1. People don't seem to understand how devastating this is.

And how much it ties into global warming.

At this rate, it won't matter what we do to combat climate change. There won't be enough natural resources to maintain the human race.

Thank you for this very important post

[MisterP]

3. "but everything's been fine so far! and some crank says we can have 12 billion! no, 70 billion!"

[marym625]

5. sigh

It's amazing how few people actually look anything up or just believe some bullshit blog

[earthside]

2. Virtually a taboo subject.

From left to right talking about overpopulation is discouraged and frowned upon.

Of course, this is largely because it is difficult to talk about solutions or mitigations if overpopulation is a problem.

Nevertheless, overpopulation is at the core of almost all of our human problems right now.

We don't really have the resources to support the nearly 8 billion humans on the planet -- it is the inequality of distribution now that allows us to manage.

Global warming is the result of nearly 8 billion humans and a percentage of that who live like Americans and Europeans.

The social and political consequences of adding another billion or two will indeed be devastating ... if we last that long.

There is evidence that abrupt climate change is actually starting to take place and we may have only another 30 or 40 years; ironically proving that we have been well over the carrying capacity of the planet for the past 50 years.

What is scary is comparing the above chart to the mouse population dynamic in John B. Calhoun's experiments. Are we even now inside a 'behavioral sink'? Does the state of the world right now indicate such?

[GliderGuider]

4. Behavioral sinks

I was also enamoured with the implications of Calhoun's work. After sitting with it for a few years, however, I'm becoming more cautious about applying his mouse utopia findings too directly to humans. While I think we may be suffering from some aspects of a Hans Selye-style General Adaptation Syndrome which seems to converge with Calhoun's behavioral sinks in some regards, I'm hesitant about reading too much prophetic power into Calhoun's work. After all, there are significant aspects of the behavioral sink he described that are not being borne out in human experience - even in super-crowded Asian cities. Those include things like ultra-high infant mortality rates, bizarre dining habits and cannibalism, for example. On the other hand, social withdrawal, sexual deviance, frenetic overactivity and poor mothering instincts seem ever-more prevalent

Like any analogy, Calhoun's research gives us a conceptual framework - which is at its best when it stimulates us to take a close, open-minded look at our own situation.

[Nihil]

7. In some respects, it's a shame that only some of the aspects are active ...

> After all, there are significant aspects of the behavioral sink he described that
> are not being borne out in human experience - even in super-crowded Asian cities.
> Those include things like ultra-high infant mortality rates, bizarre dining habits
> and cannibalism, for example.

Of those three points,

#1 would be beneficial but has been consistently negated by aid agencies whenever
there has been an outbreak so would be very unlikely to manifest in more advanced
overcrowded regions as a result of such "good intentions" paving slabs;

#2 *is* in place at the moment (e.g., the exploitation & extinction of creatures great
and small for the sake of the "special" menu items - pangolin, reef fish, tigers) so
I would argue that this *is* being borne out, albeit in a modified form compared to
when observed in mice, rats and other typical studied species;

#3 would be beneficial as it would help address the primary cause (over-population)
as well as reduce the impact of #2 above. Give them time and I'm sure it will happen.
It had better ... as the alternative is war and whilst the former only acts in a closed system,
the latter causes the spread of the negative traits without any inherent control.


> On the other hand, social withdrawal, sexual deviance, frenetic overactivity and
> poor mothering instincts seem ever-more prevalent

Sadly, that is only too true.

[marym625]

6. it is pretty unbelievable that this is taboo, but you're right, it is.

Back in the 90s it was said we had over a century before global warming would create problems we would notice. Ha! At this rate, I don't think 30 or 40 years is even correct. More like 10.

[Enthusiast]

8. Huge +1!