Growth of world population in last 2000 years

[Nearly Sane]

Thought this was a well presented set of data


http://www.vox.com/2016/11/12/13600834/human-world-population-video

[Walter]

thanks NS

judging by that I don't think I would have enjoyed living in a later period.

[ekim]

I wonder if a decline will/would happen as rapidly.

[Hope]

I was interested to read this in the write-up below the video screen.

Around 4:10, in the 18th century, the world population begins to explode thanks to the Industrial Revolution and modern medicine. From 1800 to 2015, the global population grew from about 1 billion to nearly 7 billion. And the population is projected to peak at about 11 billion around 2100.

I wonder whether we have missed the point of disease - nature's way of maintaining a manageable population?  After all, when one combines it and warfare, the world's population was kept manageable for millennia.  Will the 11 billion peak occur because the earth simply can't cope and, in effect, reject humanity in the same way that human bodies often reject 'foreign bodies'?

Could it be that we are, to all intents and purposes, creating our own demise?

[Nearly Sane]

I was interested to read this in the write-up below the video screen.

I wonder whether we have missed the point of disease - nature's way of maintaining a manageable population?  After all, when one combines it and warfare, the world's population was kept manageable for millennia.  Will the 11 billion peak occur because the earth simply can't cope and, in effect, reject humanity in the same way that human bodies often reject 'foreign bodies'?

Could it be that we are, to all intents and purposes, creating our own demise?

The 11 billion bit is predicted to flatten due to widespread contraception, abortion as developing nations follow the previous path of developed nations. I take it with a pinch of salt, as I struggle to see why advances in medicine won't continue. There is also the question of an age demographic if there is flatlining due to lower numbers of births.

I think it's odd to say that disease has a point, and if you said that to someone who had just been saved from a serious disease, I would suggest you should prepare to be punched, as it translates to 'you should  have died. I also find it odd for a Christian to effectively suggest war as something as a policy for population control.


In addition I think the most likely population 'control' in the future will be climate change.

[L.A.]

I think it's odd to say that disease has a point, and if you said that to someone who had just been saved from a serious disease, I would suggest you should prepare to be punched, as it translates to 'you should  have died. I also find it odd for a Christian to effectively suggest war as something as a policy for population control.

I don't know whether you might have missed one of your biology lessons NS, but the fact is that we are all going to die.

(sorry if this comes as a bit of a shock)

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know whether you might have missed one of your biology lessons NS, but the fact is that we are all going to die.

(sorry if this comes as a bit of a shock)

Eh?

[L.A.]

Eh?

It doesn't matter whether people are offended by the suggestion or not, the cycle of life will continue.

e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

[Nearly Sane]

It doesn't matter whether people are offended by the suggestion or not, the cycle of life will continue.

e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

And again eh! I was neither suggesting that they wouldn't die, nor that their offense would stop that. Just arguing that saying medical advances miss the 'point' of disease is a bit  odd. Or do you think that saving someone from cancer is missing the point of disease so we shouldn't save them?

[L.A.]

And again eh! I was neither suggesting that they wouldn't die, nor that their offense would stop that. Just arguing that saying medical advances miss the 'point' of disease is a bit  odd. Or do you think that saving someone from cancer is missing the point of disease so we shouldn't save them?

I don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse or just a bit thick.

your post said:

I think it's odd to say that disease has a point, and if you said that to someone who had just been saved from a serious disease, I would suggest you should prepare to be punched, as it translates to 'you should  have died. I also find it odd for a Christian to effectively suggest war as something as a policy for population

control.

My point is that medical advances make no difference to the end result - WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.

In that sense the mechanism of population control is 'built in' to the cycle of life.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse or just a bit thick.

your post said:

My point is that medical advances make no difference to the end result - WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.

In that sense the mechanism of population control is 'built in' to the cycle of life.

which is a non sequitur to the issue raised by Hope that medical   advances which have in part lead to the increase in world population ate somehow 'missing the point of disease'

[L.A.]

which is a non sequitur to the issue raised by Hope that medical   advances which have in part lead to the increase in world population ate somehow 'missing the point of disease'

Which is totally missing the point I was making:

Whether you regard it as 'The will of God' or 'Natures Way' or simply the inevitable consequence of our bio-chemical processes makes not the slightest difference. The outcome is exactly the same.

[Nearly Sane]

Which is totally missing the point I was making:

Whether you regard it as 'The will of God' or 'Natures Way' or simply the inevitable consequence of our bio-chemical processes makes not the slightest difference. The outcome is exactly the same.

And your point remains a non sequitur

[torridon]

Thought this was a well presented set of data


http://www.vox.com/2016/11/12/13600834/human-world-population-video

Superb animation, thanks for posting.

[torridon]

I was interested to read this in the write-up below the video screen.

I wonder whether we have missed the point of disease - nature's way of maintaining a manageable population?  After all, when one combines it and warfare, the world's population was kept manageable for millennia.  Will the 11 billion peak occur because the earth simply can't cope and, in effect, reject humanity in the same way that human bodies often reject 'foreign bodies'?

Could it be that we are, to all intents and purposes, creating our own demise?

Downward pressure on our numbers can come from war, epidemics, astronomical events and climate change, but also as the animation shows, fertility rates are falling worldwide, maybe this is nature's own inbuilt mechanism for regulating population levels.

[Udayana]

Er... why would "nature" have an inbuilt mechanism for regulating population levels? Can we leave it up to "nature" then?

[Bubbles]

Er... why would "nature" have an inbuilt mechanism for regulating population levels? Can we leave it up to "nature" then?

Because it works. It's an ecosystem.

When there is a glut of food the population of feeders breeds and  goes up.then the predators eat them and breed in turn.  When the glut is over the feeders starve or get eaten by the increasing population of predators.

Then the predators starve when the population of feeders drops, but there is usually a balance which is enough to keep the whole process going.

it's a system that is in constant flux.

Sometimes it's better left to nature as interference can tip the balance.

We upset it by using some pesticides. We kill the good insects too.

[Bubbles]

Some people think we will either poison ourselves like bacteria in a closed environment or that a plague will come along, killing all but those naturally immune ( which is also seen as an inbuilt mechanism so the species survive)

In the past, plagues decimated populations, keeping numbers down.

Now we have medicines, but the viruses and bacteria are fighting back, themselves becoming immune.

So in a way nature is looking to right the balance.

Antibiotics are becoming less effective, there are superbugs in our hospitals.

We are in a constant war with nature to keep the balance in our favour.

Some people think one day our luck will run out.

[Udayana]

Don't know about "works" .. it's just what happens by random.

Something "works" when it achieves some desired purpose - but there isn't one as far as we know. Nature does not have any particular balance or result in mind.

Fertility falls because we choose to have fewer children. We wouldn't just have them and let them die from disease or starvation. We might have more to fight more wars though.

Superbugs aren't fighting us, it's we that create them, or rather the spaces where they can grow.

[Jack Knave]

I wonder if a decline will/would happen as rapidly.

Given how things are going, possibly yes. If a perfect storm forms in the shape of lack of food, lack of water, lack of usable land, wars, revolutions or conflicts, then the toll could be extremely heavy.

[Jack Knave]

I was interested to read this in the write-up below the video screen.

I wonder whether we have missed the point of disease - nature's way of maintaining a manageable population?  After all, when one combines it and warfare, the world's population was kept manageable for millennia.  Will the 11 billion peak occur because the earth simply can't cope and, in effect, reject humanity in the same way that human bodies often reject 'foreign bodies'?

Could it be that we are, to all intents and purposes, creating our own demise?

Yes, Gaia can be nice and nasty.

[Jack Knave]

And again eh! I was neither suggesting that they wouldn't die, nor that their offense would stop that. Just arguing that saying medical advances miss the 'point' of disease is a bit  odd. Or do you think that saving someone from cancer is missing the point of disease so we shouldn't save them?

But if you save lives and extend life expectancy then that causes a problem of resources etc. hence wars and conflicts and so on.

[Nearly Sane]

But if you save lives and extend life expectancy then that causes a problem of resources etc. hence wars and conflicts and so on.

so you refused vaccination then?

[Jack Knave]

so you refused vaccination then?

You do come up with some crap. I'm talking about the general picture and effect of the increase in the population to unmanageable numbers not my personal outlook. As you would say a non sequitur.

[Hope]

The 11 billion bit is predicted to flatten due to widespread contraception, abortion as developing nations follow the previous path of developed nations. I take it with a pinch of salt, as I struggle to see why advances in medicine won't continue. There is also the question of an age demographic if there is flatlining due to lower numbers of births.

The World Health Organisation and various other groups suggest that contraception has little to do with 'following the previous path of developed nations'.  Instead it has to do with achieving a particular average life expectancy - 50 is apparently the pivot point.  If we, as developed nations, fail to help the developing nations improve their life expectency, many won't reach that level.

I think it's odd to say that disease has a point, and if you said that to someone who had just been saved from a serious disease, I would suggest you should prepare to be punched, as it translates to 'you should  have died. I also find it odd for a Christian to effectively suggest war as something as a policy for population control.

Well, it's the logical conclusion of evolutionary principles that deny that anything has any meaning or value.

In addition I think the most likely population 'control' in the future will be climate change.

Sadly, it will have most impact on the developing nations, thus reducing their average life expectancy.