World population to reach 9.7 billion by 2050

[UM-Bot]

The UN's latest estimates indicate that the Earth's population will grow even faster than expected.

It\'s no secret that the number of people on our planet is growing at an alarming rate - so much so that by the turn of the next century we could be looking at a population in excess of 11. 2 billion.

Read More: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/284386/world-population-to-reach-97-billion-by-2050

[bubblykiss]

I was just looking around and thinking geez, this world could use another 4.4 billion people. It just feels so lonely around here.

It's like I am not tripping over people everywhere I go.

Edited August 4, 2015 by bubblykiss

[+DieChecker]

No, no, no, no......

So many people have told me I am just being paranoid when I make this claim here on UM... over and over again.

"Education in the Third World will level off population below 10 billion..." Is what I hear over and over and over again. To which I ask why Muslims and Africans and South Americans who have historically had large families are going to magically change their minds? "Education" is always the answer.

Well, perhaps education is failing then?

I just read that Hispanics will become 20% of the US population by 2050. Well, how can that be true, if they are not having big families.... And where would they be any better educated then in the USA?

Edited August 4, 2015 by DieChecker

[Rhino666]

Close down the hospitals and stop saving lives and the number will soon come down. I reckon we can get this down to a couple of thousand if we stop selling food too.

[Lenore Graves]

ACK! Too many people already! Stop procreating!

[johnny blue eyes]

If 5.3 billion becomes 7.3 in 25 years then shouldnt we presume the population will increase by a similar 38% ish over the next 25 years making it roughly 10 billion by 2040?

[bubblykiss]

Close down the hospitals and stop saving lives and the number will soon come down. I reckon we can get this down to a couple of thousand if we stop selling food too.

Yes access to food does tend to encourage people to be alive.

[Ashotep]

Stop feeding and vaccinating them since death from starvation and disease seems to be the only kind of birth control they, and some religious people, recognize. If they are going to keep having kids like its 1899 let them live like its 1899.

[PrisonerX]

The problem isn't the number of humans being produced, it's the kind of humans being produced.

[Infernal Gnu]

HILARIOUS how we can't stop all the unprotected ****ing. Even if it means our early extinction.

Maybe it's actually okay for Artificial Intelligence to take over the planet soon as it is projected to.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Infernal Gnu

[+DieChecker]

I just read that Hispanics will become 20% of the US population by 2050. Well, how can that be true, if they are not having big families.... And where would they be any better educated then in the USA?

My bad, it is closer to 30%.

A study of the growing Hispanic immigrant population declares that the country is on the verge of the "Latinization of the United States," a "browning of America" that by 2050 will be 29 percent Latino — and politically influential.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-cites-latinization-of-u.s.-warns-of-backlash-against-whites/article/2569442

[CIA_Spy]

Yes, that's right. The world population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050. Watch where you're going, everything is in order, everything is under control. There's nothing to think about.

[Socio]

Yes access to food does tend to encourage people to be alive.

Way past time to stop feeding the pigeons so to speak.

[jarjarbinks]

I'll quote Rust Cohle on this : " I think the honorable thing for our species to do is to deny our programming. Stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction - one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal."

[Indiogene]

I'm very concerned on global overpopulation: the strains on available water and food supplies, which can lead to more famines and deaths as a result. All countries in the world, esp. the developing parts, should practice population control and family planning to prevent further overpopulation problems. I'm aware fertility rates declined in Asia, Latin America and portions of Africa in the last quarter a century, which is good...we can do better and maintain a low, yet sustainable population growth worldwide.

[TonopahRick]

Don't worry folks somebody will start another world war and the population will drop quite a bit after that. Then, if there's anybody left, we can start doing it all over again.

[Likely Guy]

Yes access to food does tend to encourage people to be alive.

Too many people, not enough food?

Eat people. problem solved.

Who was that? That's it, Jonathan Swift, 'A Modest Proposal', where he said the Irish should eat their young instead of starve. He was kidding of course but there were a lot of people at the time that supported his proposal until they realized it was satire.

"A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

[Guest Br Cornelius]

War has never constrained population growth having almost no effect on its trajectory.

The only way to constrain population growth is through intention - ie the human ability to plan for an outcome. It is the following of bad intentions (go forth and multiply without considering the consequences) or acting without intention which has brought us to where we are today.

Specific religious belief has been at the root of this problem, but there is nothing inevitable about it. Bangladesh, a specifically Muslim country, has gone from birth rates in the half dozen to replacement rates of just 2.1 in less than a generation - despite the religious instruction to go fourth and multiply.

However the growth of population to 9.8billion is all but locked in at this stage and represents a catastrophe for the long term survivability of humanity. We did most of the damage to the environment in the period since the 1980's when populations went from 3billion to 7billion. The pressure on the environment is increasing every day and adding the extra 3billion to current levels means that we will likely lose 80% or more of the biodiversity we had at the start of the 1900's. That represents a mass extinction event caused specifically by human population growth and it is unlikely we will survive it in any recognisable form. All this is likely to happen by the date of 2050 as indicated in this study. My statements are simply based upon extrapolating what has happened to get us to where we are now into the near future, there is no element of speculation beyond the available facts.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 5, 2015 by Br Cornelius

[Socio]

I'm very concerned on global overpopulation: the strains on available water and food supplies, which can lead to more famines and deaths as a result. All countries in the world, esp. the developing parts, should practice population control and family planning to prevent further overpopulation problems. I'm aware fertility rates declined in Asia, Latin America and portions of Africa in the last quarter a century, which is good...we can do better and maintain a low, yet sustainable population growth worldwide.

Quality of life goes down as world population goes up, especially when you consider a large segment of the global population are takers not producers and that segment is growing exponentially faster than the producing segment.

For starters we need ban all forms of government welfare world wide, stop all forms foreign aide, impose a moratorium on ALL immigration into more affluent countries, oust all immigrants illegally residing those countries and let the human race adjust to a sustainable level where no one has to provide sustenance for a complete stranger.

It probably does not sound like it but it would be the most humane thing man could do for man, heck for the planet and all life on it.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Socio

[Ashotep]

Unbriddled illegal immigration into developed countries from undeveloped countries will be our downfall. Just too many of them and I'm betting most aren't educated enough to read or write. Make them stay in their own countries and work on fixing that one instead of screwing up ours. What gets me is many act like its their right to enter our countries illegally.

Of course if we stopped helping all these people the pope and UN would be screaming help them, take them in, take care of them. Of course with no help from them or any idea how we are suppose to keep paying for it, all they know how to do is give lip service to the rest of us.

[Socio]

War has never constrained population growth having almost no effect on its trajectory.

The only way to constrain population growth is through intention - ie the human ability to plan for an outcome. It is the following of bad intentions (go forth and multiply without considering the consequences) or acting without intention which has brought us to where we are today.

Specific religious belief has been at the root of this problem, but there is nothing inevitable about it. Bangladesh, a specifically Muslim country, has gone from birth rates in the half dozen to replacement rates of just 2.1 in less than a generation - despite the religious instruction to go fourth and multiply.

However the growth of population to 9.8billion is all but locked in at this stage and represents a catastrophe for the long term survivability of humanity. We did most of the damage to the environment in the period since the 1980's when populations went from 3billion to 7billion. The pressure on the environment is increasing every day and adding the extra 3billion to current levels means that we will likely lose 80% or more of the biodiversity we had at the start of the 1900's. That represents a mass extinction event caused specifically by human population growth and it is unlikely we will survive it in any recognisable form. All this is likely to happen by the date of 2050 as indicated in this study. My statements are simply based upon extrapolating what has happened to get us to where we are now into the near future, there is no element of speculation beyond the available facts.

Br Cornelius

Not only does it almost have no effect on its trajectory, but because we send our best, brightest and strongest to fight and die it leaves the worst, least brightest and weakest behind to procreate the species.

[Doc Socks Junior]

Alright guys, great ideas on cutting off food and medicine. Here's a fun suggestion: you stop eating food and using modern medicine.

Anyone? Bueller?

Yeah, didn't think so.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

There are no ethically acceptable solutions to this issue so I will choose not to propose any.

Br Cornelius

[Ashotep]

No there is not an ethically acceptable solution. Can't start forcing people to use birth control, the pope would have a fit, can't stop feeding them, the Un, pope and all the do gooders will have a fit, can't deny them medicine because of last reason I gave. What I predict will happen is we will keep feeding them until one day we have to stop because we don't have enough food to feed our own people. The problem will be so vast billions will starve and the disease that goes along with all the dead bodies laying around. Guess some would consider that better than birth control or letting a few million starve now.

Honestly I don't want to see anyone starve or go without medical care but when are they going to get their act together and stop having so many kids so they don't burden the rest of the world. Stop looking at it as your right to have as many kids as you can.

[+DieChecker]

Well from their perspective, they keep having kids and somehow... the Pope, the UN... food and stuff keeps showing up. People don't cut back when they are getting free handouts. Many times when they get stuff for free, they double down, and have even more kids. We saw this in the 1970s and '80's with welfare families.