Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

World Population Could Reach Nearly 11 Billion By 2100

timothy posted about a year ago | from the paging-dr-malthus dept.

Earth 322

vinces99 writes "A new analysis shows that world population could reach nearly 11 billion by the end of this century, according to a United Nations report issued June 13. That's about 800 million, or about 8 percent, more than the previous projection issued in 2011. The change is largely because birth rates in Africa have not declined as quickly as had been expected, according to Adrian Raftery of the University of Washington's Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences. The U.N. estimates use statistical methods developed at the center. The current African population is about 1.1 billion and it is now expected to reach 4.2 billion, nearly a fourfold increase, by 2100, Raftery said."

cancel ×

322 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What?!? (5, Funny)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#43999085)

How the hell is the NSA supposed to keep track of all those people?!?!

Re:What?!? (5, Funny)

Freshly Exhumed (105597) | about a year ago | (#43999141)

Silly, when the big scooper trucks grab people up and feed them into the food chain the NSA will just file them under Project Make Room!

Re:What?!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999155)

With your tax dollars. Now get back to work. You'll need all the productivity to pay for all those NSA bills.

Re:What?!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999275)

NSA's Data Centers will be using SSD and developers will be paid over 200k/y, so everything should be OK.

Re:What?!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999379)

Just go die. Preferably in a fire.

Re:What?!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999483)

Fuck you...like I fucked your mother

Re:What?!? (2)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#43999397)

Finally, a good reason to stick with IPv4.

Re:What?!? (4, Informative)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about a year ago | (#43999451)

This makes little sense. The world population is supposed to peak in 2030 at 8.5 billion.

http://www.businessinsider.com/analyst-world-population-will-peak-at-85-billion-in-2030-2012-11 [businessinsider.com]

Even as population trends, this 11 billion by end of century figure is not believable. We can't predict the weather or climate change, but we can easily predict population growth and the African population growth angle is absolutely not justified in a non-speculative sociology realm.

Re:What?!? (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#43999673)

Then explain how they can predict a population peak.

Re:What?!? (3, Funny)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | about a year ago | (#43999721)

There can only be so many different people.
The trick is to spot all the doubles and save on diskspace and computing power!

mass effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999123)

just in time for the first contact war . . .

Won't happen (4, Interesting)

Niris (1443675) | about a year ago | (#43999151)

Unless we can support that much life with food, water and other resources, war for diminishing resources will wipe out enough population before we even get close to that.

Re:Won't happen (0, Flamebait)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about a year ago | (#43999329)

hope you are right.

Re:Won't happen (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999575)

hope you are right.

You *hope* he is right?! You *hope* billions of people are killed from war, famine, and hunger? These words actually formed in your brain and trickled out onto your keyboard? Really?!

Re:Won't happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999607)

Everyone's gotta die sometime.

Re:Won't happen (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999669)

I didn't make that comment, but fuck yeah, I hope he is right - Humans are not sacred, exalted, special little snowflakes. From the planet's perspective, humans are cockroaches at best and cancer at worst. At least Wolves and Dung Beetles care for their young and behave in a civilized manner. Let the holy resource wars begin!

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Won't happen (0)

citizenr (871508) | about a year ago | (#43999675)

hope you are right.

You *hope* he is right?! You *hope* billions of people are killed from war, famine, and hunger? These words actually formed in your brain and trickled out onto your keyboard? Really?!

Yes.

Re:Won't happen (1)

cffrost (885375) | about a year ago | (#43999749)

hope you are right.

You *hope* he is right?! You *hope* billions of people are killed from war, famine, and hunger? These words actually formed in your brain and trickled out onto your keyboard? Really?!

Yes.

How come?

Re:Won't happen (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#43999807)

I can't believe these words formed in your brain and trickled off your keyboard.

Let's say you take in 30 familys into your home, you share all your resources and your space with them. That's about what it will be like.

Re:Won't happen (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year ago | (#43999333)

It's awesome how nature self balances.

Blizzard needs to use some of their billions to employ mother nature for their next RTS.

Re:Won't happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999361)

Norman Borlaug disagrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug#Future_of_global_farming_and_food_supply

Re:Won't happen (2)

Holi (250190) | about a year ago | (#43999405)

Good for him. Unfortunately food is not the issue, Potable water is.

Re:Won't happen (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#43999457)

Good for him. Unfortunately food is not the issue, Potable water is.

I'd like to see the water that couldn't be put in a pot.

Re:Won't happen (4, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#43999395)

Unless we can support that much life with food, water and other resources, war for diminishing resources will wipe out enough population before we even get close to that.

Reverend Malthus wrote the same in 1798 in "An Essay on the Principle of Population", and was wrong then. Malthusian predictions have been wrong ever since.

I fear there will be great loss of life in the region due to war, but such resources are only scarce where local governments force them to become so to gain control over their people.

Technology improves faster than population grows. As population growth rate has been slowing down (as a %) and technological improvements have only come at a faster pace, it's a mystery why people think the problems will get worse.

Re:Won't happen (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999461)

No technology can change the absolute fact that we have finite land and finite energy.

Eventually, Malthus will be right.

Re:Won't happen (4, Funny)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year ago | (#43999539)

Eventually, Malthus will be right.

Eventually, the universe will reach heat death where all useful energy has been used.

Re:Won't happen (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about a year ago | (#43999799)

Eventually, Malthus will be right.

Eventually, the universe will reach heat death where all useful energy has been used.

That's not going to happen.

Also, technological advances are a CONSEQUENCE of large populations. Small populations huddle around fires. Large populations are in everyone's best interest.

Re:Won't happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999585)

We also have finite population, and always will. What's your point?

Re:Won't happen (2)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#43999631)

... resources are only scarce where local governments force them to become so to gain control over their people.

Currently true. However, there are hard limits as to how many people a certain tract of land will support.

Re:Won't happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999793)

But nobody knows what those limits are, since we've never hit them.

Re:Won't happen (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year ago | (#43999693)

Because population growth is relatively easy to model and has a nice continues slope.

Predicating productivity growth (which is what really matters) is hard. Technological is only one part of productivity and is the hardest to model. It is not a nice curve. It’s lumpy – with huge fits and starts. Billions were spent on computers between 1960 to 1980 with little effect on productivity. In the 1980s the code was crack and massive productivity gains. Few people guess that the internet would have such a large impact on productive so fast. I am still waiting for a fustian generator – only 20 years from now.

Now, like you, I am an optimist on the issue but it’s not like there is an iron law out there. What has me concerned is that the growth in productivity has been dropping in developed countries for the past decade. Maybe it is a measurement problem. Maybe we are in a lull between the great gains brought by IT between 1980-2000. But I am still a little worried.

Re:Won't happen (1)

AmazingRuss (555076) | about a year ago | (#43999713)

"Technology improves faster than population grows"

So far.

Re:Won't happen (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43999435)

Unless we can support that much life with food, water and other resources, war for diminishing resources will wipe out enough population before we even get close to that.

Well, there's the problem with trends. Assuming they go on forever means that, for example, everyone should now have about 52 model-Ts in their garage. That said... the population has been increasing at an accelerating rate and there's no sign that it's going to slow down.

The question isn't whether the planet can support that number, but what kind of life will be possible in that future. We may wind up breeding ourselves into anarchy as all but the richest of us struggle to keep enough food on our plates and death by starvation will be the number one cause of death worldwide. I'm not sure what kind of society or civilization will be possible in that world... it may be that humanity simply can't advance beyond a certain point because we wind up spreading like a virus, consuming all resources until none are left and then dying off, like any other invasive species.

The sad part is... despite our own self-awareness and consciousness, it will have proven we can't outgrow our animalistic nature and so, at least in evolutionary terms, humanity is a dead end. Something else will have to evolve out of the situation before we can progress beyond it.

Re:Won't happen (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year ago | (#43999557)

the population has been increasing at an accelerating rate and there's no sign that it's going to slow down.

Actually there are plenty of signs that it is going to slow down. So many signs that population is expected to peak around the year 2011 and start decreasing.

Re:Won't happen (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#43999761)

the population has been increasing at an accelerating rate and there's no sign that it's going to slow down.

Actually there are plenty of signs that it is going to slow down. So many signs that population is expected to peak around the year 2011 and start decreasing.

It depends. Much of the population growth has been fueled by one thing - oil. The availability and low cost of oil pretty much created the population boom. After all, at the start of the 20th century, the world was only 2B or so (just over 1B at the start of the 19th). By the end, it was a hair under 7B (we hit 7B under a decade ago).

Of course, we're already starting to pay the price for it, and with energy getting more expensive, it should limit population growth significantly.

Re:Won't happen (4, Insightful)

j-beda (85386) | about a year ago | (#43999711)

Well, there's the problem with trends. Assuming they go on forever means that, for example, everyone should now have about 52 model-Ts in their garage. That said... the population has been increasing at an accelerating rate and there's no sign that it's going to slow down.

Except that the growth rate has been decreasing for a while now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_population_growth_rate [wikipedia.org]

Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%.[5] The CIA World Factbook gives the world annual birthrate, mortality rate, and growth rate as 1.915%, 0.812%, and 1.092% respectively.[6] The last 100 years have seen a rapid increase in population due to medical advances and massive increase in agricultural productivity[7] made possible by the Green Revolution.[8][9][10]

The actual annual growth in the number of humans fell from its peak of 88.0 million in 1989, to a low of 73.9 million in 2003, after which it rose again to 75.2 million in 2006. Since then, annual growth has declined. In 2009, the human population increased by 74.6 million, which is projected to fall steadily to about 41 million per annum in 2050, at which time the population will have increased to about 9.2 billion.[5] Each region of the globe has seen great reductions in growth rate in recent decades, though growth rates remain above 2% in some countries of the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, and also in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Latin America.[11]

Re:Won't happen (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999445)

We already produce plenty of everything for another 2 billion people. Not saying it won't be uncomfortable, but the real boundaries on population are still well over the horizon. Think 50 billion, and that's with no progress or innovations that lower our footprint. I do'nt *want* to live in that world, but the world would function.

Re:Won't happen (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43999775)

"Unless we can support that much life with food, water and other resources, war for diminishing resources will wipe out enough population before we even get close to that."

I agree it won't happen, but it won't happen for other reasons.

Studies like this invariably project current statistical trends onward as though they will never change. But that's BS, because they always change.

If we take PAST studies, for example, even from just a few decades ago, we were told that China and India would have way more than twice as many people as they currently do. Further, food production trends were also projected as linear so even the population we really do have would have been starving.

You should take such projections with a grain of salt the size of a 5-gallon bucket.

Re:Won't happen (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#43999785)

Or disease will.

Re:Won't happen (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43999803)

In a relatively free economy, problems, counterintuitively, are solved faster than they become serious issues. [juliansimon.org]

Assuming the year 2100, and the years leading up to it, are relatively free of both general warlordism and corruption, requiring kickbacks for everything, and overbearing government (rationing, or cumulative regulatory weight people give up as in a warlord state) we can indeed expect plenty.

Julian Simon made a career of making 10 year bets on issues of shortage, longevity, and general health, vs. gloom-and-doomers.

Another way to phrase it is people invent ways to compensate for easy fruit picking getting harder and harder, and do so faster than the difficulty impacts the economy in gloom-and-doom ways.

After the results of the first 10-year bet, a complete disaster for the doomsayers of the 1970s, Isaac Asimov, one such, admitted he was wrong, even if he didn't understand why.

Remember: This isn't a political narrative. It's actual scientific theory verified time and again by counterintuitive predictions.

I used it to predict the Peak Oil concept was, in fact, BS, and it's indeed turning out to be.

One more thing, adaptation and invention are not instantaneous. His bets were 10 years, which was a granularity so small he was still uneasy.

Re:Won't happen (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year ago | (#43999815)

We can. Look at all the food that is thrown away. Then there is the inefficient way of transferring calories by passing tit through animals first.

Then there is the enormous over consumption of the western world.

So I am sure if you look at how many calories we would need and how many we would be able to produce, it would be possible. To make the maximum amount of people possible, you would need to restrict consumption per person.

So more a question of 'do we want it'? The answer is probably no as it would mean to give up everything for the group. Not the best of human features.

Re:Won't happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999817)

lets start with the biggest resource hogs on the planet then . Americans do your global civic duty and visit your local suicide booth,

30-Year Projections Are Useless (3, Insightful)

powermung (780700) | about a year ago | (#43999177)

let alone 86+ years

Re:30-Year Projections Are Useless (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#43999357)

Still makes a catchy headline though.

INDIA AND CHINA MAKING UP EIGHT OF THOSE !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999185)

Do not forget the stink !! PeeeeeeeUuuuuuu !!

not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999191)

I should show this to a elderly friend of mine who is absolutely certain that the entire threat from population growth is entirely due to the horrible white races he is part of.

But, in the long run, don't worry about it. The AIDS retrovirus didn't curtail population growth the way it was expected, the next manufactured plague will be more successful. How do you think that they can reach a sustainable population by 2100 without a global pandemic?

Re:not a problem (1)

Holi (250190) | about a year ago | (#43999309)

Manufactured plague please, Nature is far more creative then we could ever be.

Re:not a problem (1)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | about a year ago | (#43999369)

...elderly friend of mine who is absolutely certain that the entire threat from population growth is entirely due to the horrible white races he is part of.

Technically he is has a point. There is a direct, almost perfect correlation between poverty and population growth. Given that much of the poverty on an international scale is due to the fact that the more developed nations do nothing to cooperate with furthering world development, and in many cases actually work to prevent it, there is certainly some blame to be placed there.

Re:not a problem (1)

crakbone (860662) | about a year ago | (#43999473)

"do nothing to cooperate with furthering world development" Just because a nation is developed does not automatically mean it owes other countries anything. Just because you work really hard to acquire something does not mean it should be carved up and given to anyone that did not work for it. As well I think you will find the majority of issues in those areas are because local warlords prefer the status quo. We can ship all the grain, water filters, medicines we can manufacture down there and it will not do an once of good if it rots in warehouses at shipping yards.

Hey people... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999195)

STOP FUCKING!

Altho that is a wasted message to the civilized world.... It's the 3rd world shitholes that need to stop pumping out children they can't support.

Re:Hey people... (1, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43999325)

Indeed. They seem hell-bound to reestablish starvation and sickness as the main means of population control.

Re:Hey people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999523)

I have had a vasectomy and have no kids, and I don't find my excessive fucking to be causing very many problems.

Re:Hey people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999767)

spackling your mom's basement before and after the vasectomy didn't raise the population either. win - win!

Good luck with that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999201)

“These new findings show that we need to renew policies, such as increasing access to family planning and expanding education for girls, to address rapid population growth in Africa,” Raftery said.

Good luck with that.

For one, the imperialistic arrogance of the Christian "charities" of the West will put a damper on that because it doesn't fit with their beliefs.

Re:Good luck with that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999337)

Taxpayer funded abortion you mean because that is what family planning is. Maybe single women with no way of supporting their children should stop fucking.

Re:Good luck with that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999355)

Taxpayer funded abortion you mean because that is what family planning is. Maybe single women with no way of supporting their children should stop fucking.

And you should stop eating so much.

same thing asshole.

Re:Good luck with that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999427)

Taxpayer funded abortion you mean because that is what family planning is. Maybe single women with no way of supporting their children should stop fucking.

I agree! Extermination!

Heil Hitler!

Investment future for my kids / grandkids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999215)

I think I better open up a trust account for them that'll be heavily invested in the Soylent Green company.

Population Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999223)

Distribute free game consoles to the male of the species.

Not a problem here (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999227)

That's ok. Thanks to abortion, homosexuality, and selfishness there will be plenty of room here.

Re:Not a problem here (1)

Holi (250190) | about a year ago | (#43999339)

Selfishness? No, Selfishness is having too many kids, it's rather selfless to not reproduce.

Re:Not a problem here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999621)

That all depends on your perspective. When you're so self absorbed that you can't give of your time and effort to raise a child then yes that's selfish, but it would be more so to have children in spite of that. However, when one endeavors to raise a child up selflessly imparting wisdom, compassion, and a selfless attitude it can have a very positive impact in our world.

Re:Not a problem here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999373)

Just export these 3 to China, India, Africa and the Muslim empire, and we can start a population implosion similar to the one going on in Russia

Fearmongering in 3...2...1... (4, Insightful)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#43999241)

I fully expect this comments section to be full of "but what about all the resources we need for..." fears about "overpopulation". Where there's a will, there's a way. The zero population growth people would have us believe that the numbers are very different from what they really are, but the world can produce a lot more food than we do, and with minimal changes, it could be greatly increased.

Re:Fearmongering in 3...2...1... (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43999345)

Food is not all that is needed. Education, a _perspective_, freedom, clean water, health care etc. are not likely to be available to most of these people. And even food is doubtful. This planet is already massively over-populated.

Re:Fearmongering in 3...2...1... (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year ago | (#43999371)

NO its not, we are jsut assholes when it comes to distribution. We could EASILY feed, clothe and shelter every human on the planet if we abolished greed.

Re:Fearmongering in 3...2...1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999391)

lol good luck with that. Greed is the only thing that holds half of our society together. It drives people to work and contribute. If you think people would farm/build/teach without greed then you need to look back at the dark ages.

Re:Fearmongering in 3...2...1... (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#43999705)

I agree with your statement, but have to point out that this is a result of teaching. We could easily become a society that teaches something else if people tried. It's hard to read "The Republic" and why it could work. More than being "hard", it requires that people in power give up their power. The people need to be compelled to force that change, and begin teaching society to be better.

Re:Fearmongering in 3...2...1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999719)

You need to look in to the abyss of your soul and understand not all of us are sociopathic assholes like yourself. Please, kill yourself, before you hurt the rest of us any more.

Re:Fearmongering in 3...2...1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999827)

So we can assume then that you work for free? You donate all your spare time to anyone that needs it with no benefit to yourself? Yah did not think so.

Re:Fearmongering in 3...2...1... (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#43999565)

The fact that you are arguing that "this planet is already massively over-populated" tells me that discussing this with you would result in two things:
 
You getting impassioned and irritated when I argue the definitions of the words "necessity" and "overpopulation"
 
and
 
Me getting frustrated when I try to explain why I don't believe your amazingly egalitarian and magnanimous but unrealistically Utopian ideas bear any particular resemblance to what it takes for a human society to exist.

Re:Fearmongering in 3...2...1... (3, Insightful)

Holi (250190) | about a year ago | (#43999353)

Food sure, but water? No desalinization is expensive and we already have water problems without a solution here in the First World. Imagine how much more trouble it causes the 3rd World.

Re:Fearmongering in 3...2...1... (2)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#43999431)

You're saying something is presently costly, not that it's impossible or even that difficult.

Re:Fearmongering in 3...2...1... (1)

kenaaker (774785) | about a year ago | (#43999515)

And exactly what is going to get all this extra food production going? Good wishes?

If the food is going to be produced in the western economy it's going to have to be sold for enough money to cover the cost of increasingly expensive fertilizer, seed, land, labor, and fuel that mechanized agriculture uses. If it's going to be produced in the under-developed parts of the world, the productivity of the local farmers is going to have to be increased dramatically. There's no plausible mechanism for that sort of productivity increase.

If you look at the agricultural commodity markets (in particular the price spikes), a lot of the price elasticity seems to be gone, which may be a sign that the mechanized agricultural industry is at maximum capacity. We may be only a couple of crop failures away from food rationing.

Another indication may be the "Arab Spring" upheavals. A number of the press reports credited food riots with starting the unrest.

Re:Fearmongering in 3...2...1... (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#43999589)

That's an artificial barrier. I'm saying something is possible, not that the present political situation makes it simple.

Re:Fearmongering in 3...2...1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999609)

Food itself is not the problem.

The world has PLENTY of food right now.. Yet millions starve every year...

The problem is one of logistics. How do you get ALL the food to ALL the people...

And that's a problem that right now. We still can't solve it really. And millions starve every year...

So 11 billion people... Yeah, you guys might wanna do something about that.. It's not a problem yet.. But give it a decade or 3 and you're gonna have a problem

Re:Fearmongering in 3...2...1... (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#43999659)

If we had moved to sustainable living, I would agree with you. That is not what we have, and there is no push from Governments to make us cleaner.

Instead of addressing pollution, we argue about "global warming" as if that is the root cause of our woes. It's not, but people are too stupid to see reality. Lobbyists pump money into politicians pockets to ensure that we can keep on polluting, and arguing everything except for the obvious.

If we cleaned up, it would still take a long time for ocean dead zones to become healthy, and land to become viable for farming. That is the point where I will state that you are absolutely wrong by the way. We have screwed up enough of the planet that we can't support many more people, we lack the land and water to do so.

Notice I didn't mention a whole lot of other resource issues we have to get resolved in order to sustain a larger populace. Things like shark fining, and herbicide/pesticide issues make the issue a whole lot more than simply claiming "we can plant more stuff."

weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999281)

So over the next 90 year, 3 of the only 4 new billion people will be from one sixth of the planet? I would like to see details before believing that.

Condoms (1)

Ben C. (2950903) | about a year ago | (#43999317)

How much of an impact would it have if the Catholic Church OK'd condoms?

Re:Condoms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999365)

We can't have that, how else will the church get a fresh supply of gullible?

Re:Condoms (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#43999429)

Not much. Most of that population growth comes from other areas, like China or India.

Or... (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#43999335)

Climate change could cause drought and famine in many 3rd world countries where most of the growth is happening, and we end up with half that population

Re:Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999687)

So the problem solves itself, COOL!!!

Well Done Bob Geldof (0)

lobiusmoop (305328) | about a year ago | (#43999383)

Looks like Live Aid is proving to be a fucking disaster over the long term.

Re:Well Done Bob Geldof (1)

Graydyn Young (2835695) | about a year ago | (#43999647)

If your suggesting that the solution to overpopulation is people starving to death, than please, you first.

Re:Well Done Bob Geldof (1)

AmazingRuss (555076) | about a year ago | (#43999757)

What happened when we fed them in the 80s?

They made twice as many starving people.

Feeding them resulted in even MORE people starving.

Re:Well Done Bob Geldof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999813)

a) our population continues to increase exponentially forever
b) our population does not continue to increase exponentially forever

Unfortunately the permutations under (b) involve a lot of people dying for lots of reasons, and that solution is likely to find us.

Re:Well Done Bob Geldof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999657)

it may have been more successful but he didn't like mondays.

And if every one of those 11 billion... (1)

Picass0 (147474) | about a year ago | (#43999459)

...gave Dr. Evil a million dollars he'd have (da daaa dadada dadada) 11 MILLION BILLION DOLLARS!!!!

Muahahaaha! Muahahaha!!!!

Space Age (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999487)

Hopefully before that happens, the space age of humanity will be fully active and we will be out mining space and have space colonies and so on.
The latter is a bit optimistic, former is very realistic.

As more people realize the potential benefits of space mining, more and more companies will likely form.
The current companies will become the framework for these secondary companies to get even further in to space and gather even more resources to realistically allow for creating space colonies.
That likely won't happen until 2150 onwards, being semi realistic in terms of how fast society moves now.

I know we still war even now over petty shit, but I hope the larger ones involved will stick to wanting to rule the world with their resource and monetary wealth rather than military strength.
So far everyone seems to be sticking to it, but who knows that could happen, sometimes people snap.

Likely a conservative estimate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999509)

As the quality of life improves in Africa through the heroic efforts of a long-suffering population, its population will explode. Remember how everyone claims China's the next superpower? The African Union will crush them in 100 years. Let's not forget that Africa is the source of a staggeringly large proportion of the world's resources -- including oil, gold, and diamonds (aka the world's three biggest stores of wealth). It is relations with Africa, not China, which will define the geopolitical landscape in 2100, which puts an interesting perspective on the reasons behind much of the turmoil on the continent.

(Assuming we aren't all dead due to nuclear war [wikipedia.org] first.)

Bwahahahahaha!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999809)

Africa??? You've got to be kidding. Africa may have shitloads of natural resources, but unfortunately is also full of Africans, who have proven repeatedly over and over again and again... (even when under domination of white European colonial imperialists who lifted them to the highest reaches of economic prosperity they ever reached in their entire history, then they fell swiftly and greatly to worse status than before when they pushed their white overlords out of power and out of their lands), that they are fundamentally incapable of achieving a self-generated and self-sustained/growing economic engine of any kind. No sirs, they have always been, as a whole, more interested in localized greed, power and killing each other in tribal fashion for instant gratification of satisfying those appetites and cannot see much of anything beyond that.

I predict this will be immediately moderated troll or flamebait, but you have to admit it is true.

but wait (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#43999519)

Did they factor in the Mars population though? You obviously have to subtract that.

Earth to Humans: Failure to Launch? (1)

rsborg (111459) | about a year ago | (#43999521)

We need a Paula [imdb.com] . Vulcans? Hell, I'd take Vogons at this point.

Paula: Look, many young men who should be able to move out, simply can't. It's called "failure to launch". And that's where I come in. Young men develop self-esteem best during a romantic relationship, so I simulate one. We have a memorable meeting. We get to know each other over a few casual meals, he helps me through an emotional crisis, then I meet his friends, if he has any... Then I let him teach me something... But the bottom line is, he bonds with me. He lets go of you. He moves out.

10 billion (1)

ichthus (72442) | about a year ago | (#43999571)

Or, it could peak at 10 billion [ted.com] , with little to no ill effect.

The other white meat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999619)

We'll start eating each other long before 2100. I mean, we'll have to right? The world's gotta eat something.

I predict by 2100 we may even be on the endangered list. Only the juiciest and fattiest (and that good marbled kind of fat not the big blobs of American fat) members of society will be allowed to breed, I mean reproduce. Garlic butter may be hard to come by.

World population to reach 2 billion by 2100! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43999627)

With oil gone in ~2038-2042 and no expected replacement for ~100 years after that, the inability to grow and move food may change a lot of "In the year 2050 xxx!" predictions.
Not to mention the impact of the current 9 billion people have on the enviro may make living very different in the next 80 years.

"Science will save us!" is just as good as "God will save us!".

Lets face it, I make a solar farm that supplies all of the world, I still have the byproducts of all the people to deal with.

Don't Trust Long Term Predictions (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year ago | (#43999665)

I wouldn't put much faith in long term predictions. 2100 is 87 years away. 87 years ago, it was 1926. In 1927, the world's population reached 2 billion (up from 1 billion in 1804). Had they made a prediction then, they would have likely guessed that we'd hit 3 billion by 2049. Maybe 4 billion if they thought we were doubling population numbers. In addition, if someone from 1926 tried predicting what the technology of 2013 would be like, I highly doubt they'd be anywhere close.

My prediction? In 87 years, the world will look in many ways the same and in many ways vastly different in ways that I couldn't begin to imagine at this point.

I'll be dead by then... (1)

Holammer (1217422) | about a year ago | (#43999763)

So I'm doing my part!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>