Comments on: There may be over 10 billion of us by 2100

By: derek

derek — Sun, 21 Sep 2014 09:01:14 +0000

From the Rwanda trend, it seems the population grows quickly to the limit of food production, (it blipped up after the genocide), and we’ve been getting better everywhere at producing food by about 1% a year. The populations of first world countries aren’t going down either, they’re growing by 1% p.a. too, through immigration.

What happens if global warming reduces our food production limit by 1% in a year? That’s about 80 million fewer people, all in one year. Our population shouldn’t some down because it’s being forced down from above by food limits. We should draw it down from below, until it’s much lower than the food producing limit.

The political problem is someone’s always going to be unhappy they can’t have a baby, even though they could clearly feed one, and someone else is always going to be unhappy they can’t have a new worker, even though they could clearly pay one. From there comes the impulse to denialism: “we’re sure there’s nothing to be worried about, you’re just being meeean and you hate babies!”

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:46:43 +0000

No joke, typo

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:45:53 +0000

Sokol’s analysis was later overturned; the most effective way to reduce fertility is to increase inter-birth intervals.

By: Marco

Marco — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:30:49 +0000

Maybe i am just not getting the joke, but, uhm, 10 billion by 2011??

By: Jim Thomerson

Jim Thomerson — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:28:22 +0000

Back in the 70’s, Sokol, I think it was, did the math, and came to the conclusion that the most effective way to slow population growth was delay of first birth, lengthening generation time. This fits in with your comments about empowering women, and having babies survive better is a good thing also. If they live, you don’t have to have as many.