The World Might Actually Run Out Of People

Discussion in 'Scientific Studies' started by haidut, Aug 12, 2020.

  1. haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    17,030
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    As many of my readers know, the mantra of overpopulation has been the driving force behind countless political initiatives, usually related to draconian austerity. You see, according to most of the imbeciles we have put in office all over the world's governments, the world's population is exploding uncontrollably and there is simply not enough resources to feed and take care of everybody. As such, a number of drastic and often directly evil measures are undertaken including heavy advertising of abortion, hormonal contraceptives, vasectomies, childless families by choice, etc, etc. Then there are also the conspiracy theories, some of which have direct evidence of veracity, related to the forced sterilization of young people in developing countries through the introduction of contaminated vaccines, and other medical interventions during childhood that lead to infertility/sterility later in life.

    Now, the article below discusses a book that provides strong arguments and evidence disproving the very claim that the world is experiencing a population explosion. In fact, the authors of the book argue, if current trends in female education patterns, modernization, and family planning continue, the world may actually experience a "depopulation" event. It is yet another example of a few loud (and rich/powerful) voices pushing a narrative that suits only them. Apparently, just as is the case in medicine, there is actually a majority dissenting opinion we never get to hear since the guards/owners of the gateways to information / knowledge (Google, mainstream press, scientific journals, etc) never let those voices be heard. If even 1% of what that book argues is true then all the "population control" measures undertaken so far by UN, WHO, various governments around the world, and especially private medical companies, are nothing short of genocide...

    In yet another striking example of synchronicity, just hours after I found this article my news feed provided another article about a study done at University of Washington that not only confirms the overall predictions of the book that the world population will decline, but also provides some specific projections for world population and the number is strikingly close to the one provided in the book as well. The opinion of the study authors is far from rosy. If there is an actual population decline, this will have a devastating economic impact worldwide as the ratio of old/young people will increase and as such pension funds, health cares systems, and other social support structures (that depend on a constant stream of young workers) may very well collapse. The study and the article are posted below, after the link about the book and the quotes discussing it. As far as I can tell, neither the book authors nor the study authors know each other or have cited each other's previous work. So, now we have two independent groups arriving at largely the same conclusion, which is itself a prime example of synchronicity, or using more modern terminology - an example of morphic resonance as per Rupert Sheldrake. Btw, I find the BBC article particularly relevant as it calls attention to the "jaw-dropping global crash" of fertility rates. So much for the "explosion" of world population...

    The World Might Actually Run Out of People
    "...You know the story. Despite technologies, regulations, and policies to make humanity less of a strain on the earth, people just won’t stop reproducing. By 2050 there will be 9 billion carbon-burning, plastic-polluting, calorie-consuming people on the planet. By 2100, that number will balloon to 11 billion, pushing society into a Soylent Green scenario. Such dire population predictions aren’t the stuff of sci-fi; those numbers come from one of the most trusted world authorities, the United Nations. But what if they’re wrong? Not like, off by a rounding error, but like totally, completely goofed? That’s the conclusion Canadian journalist John Ibbitson and political scientist Darrell Bricker come to in their newest book, Empty Planet, due out February 5th. After painstakingly breaking down the numbers for themselves, the pair arrived at a drastically different prediction for the future of the human species. “In roughly three decades, the global population will begin to decline,” they write. “Once that decline begins, it will never end.”

    "...The UN population data is something we call vertical knowledge, or “everybody knows” knowledge. Whether it’s the prime minister of a country, a university academic, a business leader, a student, just a guy on the street, you ask any of them, “What is happening with population?” and they go, “Oh it’s terrible, there’s a huge population explosion. I was just watching a movie last night where Earth got so crowded everyone had to relocate to the moons of Jupiter.” It’s just deeply embedded. DB: And whenever that happens you should really go and look hard at the assumptions, and test them yourself, because most of the time reality has already moved past where that vertical knowledge resides."

    "...JI: So that’s what we did. And it didn’t take long before we realized that there was a whole body of demographers who have been questioning the UN’s numbers for years. They’ve just been talking to each other at conferences and through scholarly articles, but they’ve never gotten this information before the general public. That was kind of our starting point. And then when we went out and talked to real people in the world about the choices they’re making, that’s when the statistics we were seeing came to life."

    "...DB: There was a moment when we were sitting in this little school in Srinivaspuri, listening to a focus group of 13 or 14 women who lived there. And I kept seeing this faint glow light up under their saris. I didn’t know what it was. And then I saw one woman reach in and pull out a smartphone, look at it, and put it back. And I realized, here we are in a slum in Delhi, and all these women have smartphones. Who can read. Who have data packages. And I was thinking, they have all of human knowledge in their hands now. What’s the impact of that going to be?"

    "...DB: So, the UN forecasting model inputs three things: fertility rates, migration rates, and death rates. It doesn’t take into account the expansion of education for females or the speed of urbanization (which are in some ways linked). The UN says they’re already baked into the numbers. But when I went and interviewed [the demographer] Wolfgang Lutz in Vienna, which was one of the first things we did, he walked me through his projections, and I walked out of the room gobsmacked. All he was doing was adding one new variable to the forecast: the level of improvement in female education. And he comes up with a much lower number for global population in 2100, somewhere between 8 billion and 9 billion."

    "...JI: Lutz has this saying that the most important reproductive organ for human beings is your mind. That if you change how someone thinks about reproduction, you change everything. Based on his analysis, the single biggest effect on fertility is the education of women. The UN has a grim view of Africa. It doesn’t predict much change in terms of fertility over the first quarter of the century. But large parts of African are urbanizing at two times the rate of the global average. If you go to Kenya today, women have the same elementary education levels as men. As many girls as boys are sitting for graduation exams. So we’re not prepared to predict that Africa will stagnate in rural poverty for the rest of the century."

    "...DB: And that’s just one cultural variable. So you can say that the old models always worked in the past, but what if the past is not prologue? What if we’re moving into a different cultural moment? What if it’s accelerating? And what if that cultural moment really is about the personal decisions women make about their lives?"

    "...JI: We polled 26 countries asking women how many kids they want, and no matter where you go the answer tends to be around two. The external forces that used to dictate people having bigger families are disappearing everywhere. And that's happening fastest in developing countries. In the Philippines, for example, fertility rates dropped from 3.7 percent to 2.7 percent from 2003 to 2018. That's a whole kid in 15 years. In the US, that change happened much more slowly, from about 1800 to the end of the Baby Boom. So that’s the scenario we’re asking people to contemplate."

    "...DB: A lot of people who are thinking about the future of the world, the future economy, the future of city planning, they’re basing their projections on that future size of the human population. And people are actually making decisions based on this. If you dig in and see that there isn’t going to be a lot of growth of young people coming into the population, a lot of growth is actually going to come from older people hanging around longer because we’re getting better every day at keeping them alive. How does that affect transit decisions in New York City? Or how governments support rural communities that are collapsing at an enormous rate right now. All those decisions are based on having a correct understanding of what our societies will look like in the future."

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext
    'Jaw-dropping' world fertility rate crash expected
    Earth's Population Will Begin Shrinking Within 50 Years, Scientists Predict

    "...Overpopulation has been a staple of dystopian fiction for decades, with stories predicting an unmitigated spread of humanity pushing Earth's resources to breaking point. A fresh look at the numbers paints a very different scenario. A team of researchers estimate by the 2060s there'll be maybe another two billion people on Earth. Just a few decades later, numbers will drop as fertility rates decline and nations like Japan and Italy lose as much as half of their population. Just how this overall decline will impact society and the planet is hard to say. We might assume fewer mouths to feed and fewer bodies to house would be less taxing on the environment. But the reality of a shrinking population may be a bleak one. "While population decline is potentially good news for reducing carbon emissions and stress on food systems, with more old people and fewer young people, economic challenges will arise as societies struggle to grow with fewer workers and taxpayers, and countries' abilities to generate the wealth needed to fund social support and health care for the elderly are reduced", says first author of the new study Stein Emil Vollset, a biostatistician from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in Washington."

    @Drareg @tankasnowgod @Regina
     
  2. Regina

    Regina Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,681
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Chicago
    It should probably coincide with Gate's blocking the sun to cool the planet with grand solar minimum. Frozen empty 'smart' cities with robots telling Bezos, "sorry, there are no orders."
     
  3. james2388

    james2388 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2020
    Messages:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    World population - 1900-- 1.6billion
    US population- 1900 -- 76.2 million
    World population - 2020 -- 7.8 billion
    US population - 2020 -- 331 Million

    Life has a funny thing for bell curves. 120 years 4.3-4.8X population... 1/3 growth of factor. Next 40 years a modest /1.5 = 5.2bilion US 220million. Empires will fall. Lines will be rewritten. From one iteration the next.
     
  4. Vinny

    Vinny Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2018
    Messages:
    1,140
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Paphos, Cyprus
    ... and gender education.
     
  5. Cleo

    Cleo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2020
    Messages:
    53
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Australia
    I don’t understand this haha. Could You Perhaps explain a bit more?
     
  6. OP
    haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    17,030
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    Yes, that too. There was a recent post on the "science" section of Reddit titled "Humans who have a cervix should start regular screenings...". Even the progressive crowd on Reddit choked on that and kept mocking the OP saying "uhhh, those are called women, ya know?"
     
  7. ThinPicking

    ThinPicking Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2019
    Messages:
    50
    Gender:
    Male
    I've found the overpopulation idea so toxic and pervasive. People are consumed with the idea it's where we are. I always felt it was wrong, at best a distribution issue combined with socioeconomic factors.

    What the world needs now is more shagging, more babies, more families, more opportunity etc.

     
  8. OP
    haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    17,030
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    All of these things are fundamentally incompatible with "technocracy" - the idea that human society and each individual need to be precisely engineered and controlled. As long as we are led by technocrats, all of those things will be under attack. It is not a coincidence that it was technocrats who came up with the term "unprotected sex". There is something deeply patronizing and insulting about that term, sound almost like a "license", or at least social approval of some sort. What's next - how dare we eat "infectious food", because, you know, regular food is teeming with bacteria and can't possibly be OK for eating until properly sterilized, inspected, licensed, etc?
     
  9. ThinPicking

    ThinPicking Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2019
    Messages:
    50
    Gender:
    Male
    I know it's true and I'm daydreaming.

    I am hopelessly optimistic though. The path we're on isn't set, people here and beyond give me great hope for the future most days.

    Thank you @haidut for all these concepts wrapped in evidence.
     
  10. PxD

    PxD Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2020
    Messages:
    54
    Gender:
    Male
    I think he's using the 1900 and 2020 population numbers to try and fit a normal bell curve, with 2020 population being the peak of the curve. He then projects forward 40 years and comes up with a global population of 5.2 billion.
     
  11. PxD

    PxD Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2020
    Messages:
    54
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe you should take a trip to places like Mumbai, Shanghai, or Lagos, so you can feel, see and smell what cheek-by-jowl crowding is like...people stacked on top of people.

    I think this analysis is missing a huge part of the puzzle which is where and how the population growth occurs. This is the elephant in the room but it's not being touched on because of the political implications.

    The population of the (white) West has been flat since about 1970, when it made up 1/3rd of humanity. The entirety of the 4.5 billion people added since then have been in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. I agree with you that we could do with higher birth rates in Western countries. I would prefer that over having waves of aliens constantly imported and then having the PTB attempt to brainwash us with the religion of multiculturalism.

    Going forward from 2020, virtually the entirety of the globe's population growth is projected to be in black Africa. Whereas historically sub-Saharan Africa was 6% of global population, the authors of these articles/studies are projecting 35% by 2100 - while simultaneously advocating for open borders and mass migration - essentially what they're proposing is a world where every country has a large African minority. One of the academics in the BBC article says something to the effect of "we're going to have to fight against racism in a world full of migrating blacks", i.e. you're going to be "culturally enriched" and if you don't like it, the state should punish you. This over-reaching social engineering agenda sounds like the sort of thing only a technocrat reaching for the heights of stupidity could come up with.

    I think making deterministic forecasts of anything out to 2064 or 2100 is absurd. These models are overly simplistic and backwards-looking, fitting data to curves under the current paradigm, which works until the paradigm shifts. If you're wondering what the paradigm is, it's the energy-abundant fossil fuel-driven post-WW2 world.

    Population will fall as affordable energy supplies fall. The sharp upward explosion in population around 1950 coincides with massive development of oil and natural gas resources. These hydrocarbons are what we used to massively increase crop yields, perform mechanical work, move goods around the world (globalism, outsourcing), and manufacture medicines to keep pathogens at bay. This is what allowed population to multiply so quickly.

    My view on the energy paradigm is that we passed the peak in terms of resource quality (EROI) for oil and coal probably 10-15 years ago. Going forward, energy resource quality will continue to deteriorate and then the quantity deliverable at an affordable price will start falling soon as well. As energy supplies have grown over the past 60 years, some portion of the incremental energy supply went to growing the population and some portion went to raising standards of living. I think it will work in reverse, going forward: as affordable energy supply growth can no longer keep up with population growth, standards of living will fall first (starting in the global economic peripheries) and then as things continue to get worse population growth itself will hit a wall and go into reverse. Population will peak and fall not so much because of women's education, but because of growing energy poverty. Symptoms will be/are rising food prices, followed by declining food production, crop losses, rising prices for transport and medicine manufacture, declining economic demand as more people fall into poverty and are 'locked out' of consuming large amounts of energy, rising costs of maintaining critical infrastructure, etc. Solar and wind are no substitute for hydrocarbons because they themselves require a hydrocarbon economy to build and maintain them and because once you factor in the cost of storage their EROIs are too low to sustain a complex society - in short, their true value is practically zero.

    If the supply of affordable calories (energy) falls, then so will population. End of story. (First graph is from energymatters.com, second is from Smil (2010), and UN (population).) I'm willing to bet the world of 2064 will look wildly different than what demographers are predicting.
    world_energy_population.pngEarth104Mod8Fig5.png
     
  12. ThinPicking

    ThinPicking Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2019
    Messages:
    50
    Gender:
    Male
    I've been to Mumbai and Shanghai, not Lagos. Love Tokyo (though I understand the human cost). I understand density's a huge problem and there's some deep social engineering at work. Some of it race/migration based, probably intended to divide and confuse.

    I also understand population growth has trended petrochemical exploitation. However I don't go in for the scarcity thing, if it's here it's artificial and we can change it. Denser petrochemicals probably need phasing out save a better way to extract energy from them without the particulate/aromatic problems. Keep in mind we waste huge amounts of these resources and there are better ways to do things.

    I remember digging all this up a decade ago as Michael Ruppert tore himself apart. RIP old man.
     
  13. ThinPicking

    ThinPicking Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2019
    Messages:
    50
    Gender:
    Male
  14. Vinny

    Vinny Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2018
    Messages:
    1,140
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Paphos, Cyprus
    :rolling
     
  15. PxD

    PxD Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2020
    Messages:
    54
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you sure? Sounds like a statement of faith. There's nothing written in stone that says the energy-abundance age is meant to last forever.

    Humanity has never, ever transitioned from a denser energy source to a less-dense energy source, and for good reason (it doesn't work). Unless we are willing to nuclearize the whole world's electricity supply in the next 30-40 years, I don't see how status quo perpetual growth can continue, because greater and greater population demands continued additions to the total supply of high-quality, on-demand energy...even moreso if the growing population demands a growing standard of living.

    I work in the energy business and from what I've seen the quality of new energy supplies has been falling (especially true of oil, nat gas, and coal) for years already while at the same time the sizes of new discoveries have also been dropping since the 1970s. Ditto for other resources, such as metals. Did you see BP's announcement last week that they're going to get rid of 40% of the oil and gas production? The PR spin is that it has to do with becoming a green company; the truth is they simply haven't found any oil in 15 years and they're basically giving up on hydrocarbons to go chase taxpayer subsidies in the renewables arena. It's a giant warning sign to postmodern civilization, but I think the powers that be don't want to cause alarm so it's being spun as an energy transition.
     
  16. ThinPicking

    ThinPicking Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2019
    Messages:
    50
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure, there's nothing written in stone either way. Peak hydrocarbon is a faith in itself, a dark one liable to cause suicide.

    "Did you see BP's announcement last week that they're going to get rid of 40% of the oil and gas production" - Oil demand's in the tank thanks to a contrived response to a fake pandemic. Oil corps are being compelled to collapse their operations under longer term plans like "The Great Reset".

    Zoom out my man. Anything's possible.

    Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia
     
  17. Steven Bussinger

    Steven Bussinger Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2016
    Messages:
    442
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Ray mentioned Mendeleev's work on abiogenic petroleum in some of his old Politics and Science interviews.
     
  18. james2388

    james2388 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2020
    Messages:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Just simple statistics. Standard Deviation Bell Curve. If a 120 years ago we were at 1.6 billion, assuming we are at peak population, the next 40 years fall into something around 5 billion people. As for the rest of it empires will fall lines will be rewritten etc the long term trends in the US, Italy, Japan, and South America and even china are already at major demographic changes with an aging society with declining birth rates. Thing is everyone wants to come to America, and EU, so population will aggregate together.

    But the reality is countries will not collapse years or decades from now. Countries are collapsing right now under inflation, automation, covid hysteria, ageing population, and the decline of globalization. Central and South America are particularly vulnerable at this time. The EU will be destabilized soon when the global depression/recession hits. Intermarium will be solidified. etc.

    The thing I hate about all this elite doomsday porn, is it never mentions any geopolitical outlook for the next 50 years or so, which even George Soros is warning about how serious China is.

    The true aim of all this, is the end of consumerism established with crony debt fueled capitalism as we've seen in retail apocalypse.
     
Loading...