What'll the world population be in 2100?

[Victor Galis]

Unfortunately some of our practices are unsustainable. Think overfishing. Sure it produces more in the short term, but long-term its slitting our throat.

Though to talk about carrying capacity is rather vague. The average European consumes much fewer resources than the average American. The world could support far fewer people if everyone lived like an American, and far more if everyone lived European style. To judge carrying capacity, one needs to think about the life style those people would lead. I do not believe the Earth could support 6 billion living American-style, and all resources would become scarce things to be fought over. I don't see World War III as being a war between great powers, but rather being a low-intensity conflict waged in the third world for control of resources, possibly by the great powers, possibly by regional powers seeking to dominate their weaker neighbors.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by VetLegion
No, not in Africa.

But my point is that even if growth rates decline, they're not likely to dissapear.

There are predictions about European countries declining from, say, 80 million to 60 million (Germany) or from 55 million to 35 million (Italy) in the next 50 years, based on trends. I don't trust those predictions. The countries that have hit rock bottom WRT growth (a negative growth) are probably going to recover back to stable zero, while Africa, India, Latin America are going to keep growing strongly for the forseable time.

lotm: there indeed are significant differences between cultures, and that means that demographic transition may never finish in some countries.

Actually growth rates ARE declining in Africa. dramatically in Arab North Africa, and in South Africa (and not just from AIDS, but from declining birth rates) TFRS have declined significantly in Ghana and Kenya, though the decline has slowed in recent years. And theres been a slow decline in Nigeria.

Theres no real cultural connection that the ones that have failed to see declines have that sets them apart from countries that have seen declines.

Theres also no good picture of what "completing the demo transition" involves. In the US and NW Europe it seems to mean stabilizing at a TFR about 10% below replacement. In Southern and Eastern Europe it seems to involved heading for TFRs as much as 30 or 40% below replacement. At least some non-western countries seem to be following the Southern/Eastern European model.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In the US and NW Europe it seems to mean stabilizing at a TFR about 10% below replacement. In Southern and Eastern Europe it seems to involved heading for TFRs as much as 30 or 40% below replacement. At least some non-western countries seem to be following the Southern/Eastern European model.

IMO, the TFR for the U.S. and NW Europe is skewed because of the high level of immigration. Immigrants tend to have more children than do natives. If the percentage of immigrants to the US and NW Europe were lower, their TFR would probably be closer to those of Southern and Eastern Europe.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wycoff


IMO, the TFR for the U.S. and NW Europe is skewed because of the high level of immigration. Immigrants tend to have more children than do natives. If the percentage of immigrants to the US and NW Europe were lower, their TFR would probably be closer to those of Southern and Eastern Europe.

Italy has a very high level of immigrants, thats the main reason their population isnt declining, yet they have a low TFR.

The US TFR, including immigrants, is above replacement. Excluding immigrants, its below replacement, but still well above southern and eastern europe. NW Europe doesnt, AFAIK, have particulary more immigrants than Southern Europe. We're talking UK and France vs Italy and Spain, both of the latter have massive numbers of immigrants, and at least in Italy its a huge political issue.

[KrazyHorse]

The UK and Italy both have comparable rates of immigration. France and Spain, far from having "massive" numbers of immigrants, both have less than half the net migration rate of the previous two.

Spain has a net migration rate ~17% that of Canada's, for comparison. France has one ~12% that of Canada's

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The UK and Italy both have comparable rates of immigration. France and Spain, far from having "massive" numbers of immigrants, both have less than half the net migration rate of the previous two.

Spain has a net migration rate ~17% that of Canada's, for comparison. France has one ~12% that of Canada's

I stand corrected. I had read something on changing Spanish patterms of immigration, and have heard several anecdotal things about it, and was under the impression (which may be true) that Spain had a low TFR comparable to Italy, and I simply confused them with the Italian situation.

[KrazyHorse]

Spain and Italy both have comparable TFRs, far below replacement levels.

TFR is a questionable statistic, however. It may be that Southern Europe is simply in the middle of a demographic shift between young pregnancies and NW Europe style pregnancies, as you mentioned earlier. I can especially imagine this being the case in Spain.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Spain and Italy both have comparable TFRs, far below replacement levels.

TFR is a questionable statistic, however. It may be that Southern Europe is simply in the middle of a demographic shift between young pregnancies and NW Europe style pregnancies, as you mentioned earlier. I can especially imagine this being the case in Spain.

It may be that a lot of Italian women intend to have two children after age 40. Whether thats a realistic expectation for all of them is rather something else.

BTW, I note Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world. Is that a reasonable basis for comparison?

[KrazyHorse]

The US has a net migration rate of over 3. Australia has almost 4. The UK and Italy both have over 2. Canada has almost 6.

France and Spain both have under 1. By that comparison, Spain has a low immigration flow relative to the rest of the industrialised world (probably higher than Japan, though).

[DanS]

Another thing that should be mentioned is that the population figures may be impacted greatly by whether the female period of fertility is increased.

About 5 years ago, there were rumors here in Washington that the fertility period could be increased by about 20 years. This was mentioned in conjunction with an equal increase in longevity. Since then, the rumors have died off, and nothing has been introduced. Probably just a flash in the pan, but I note that there has been a big increase lately in US gov't funding of longevity studies.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The US has a net migration rate of over 3. Australia has almost 4. The UK and Italy both have over 2. Canada has almost 6.

France and Spain both have under 1. By that comparison, Spain has a low immigration flow relative to the rest of the industrialised world (probably higher than Japan, though).

It should be note that the current US immigration is the highest its been since the 1920s. From 1947 to 1960 it was about 1.5, which didnt seem all that massive, IIUC, but then this is a traditional immigrant recieving country (apart from the exceptional period of the 1930s) I suspect in all the countries you mention, the rates are probably higher than they are accustomed too, which would account for much of the anecdotal material. I mean Italy now has a rate higher than the US had before 1970, and Italy is a traditional net sender of emmigrants.

[KrazyHorse]

That's true for most of Europe, though. Only France has a lower net migration rate than Spain in Western Europe.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Zoid
Nature is striking back. 2100 the monkeys will have taken over

You are wrong. Didn't you see the movie? Its the year 3000 braniack.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Odin


You do know that we are in population overshoot, right? we've exceeded the planet's ecological carrying capacity.

Technology can reduce the impact of an individual on the enviroment. Lets take an extreme example; an advanced society like Star Trek where food is provided by replicators.

[Narz]

an advanced society like Star Trek