Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday February 05 2019, @12:39AM   Printer-friendly
from the Betteridge-says-maybe dept.

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 Darrel 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 World Might Actually Run Out of People (archive)

Empty Planet

Who do you think is right ? The United Nations or Darrel Bricker/John Ibbitson ?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday February 05 2019, @01:32AM (3 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday February 05 2019, @01:32AM (#796417) Journal

    You'll know it when you see it.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 05 2019, @01:50AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 05 2019, @01:50AM (#796431)

    1) Governments and their corporate cronies have a motivation to kill off all the people who they owe pensions and social security.
    - We can already see this in the US life expectancy dropping since the activation of Obamacare in ~2014 gave more people access to "healthcare" (ie, dangerous chemicals and surgical procedures).[1]

    2) It seems we are likely due for a grand solar minimum in the next few decades.
    - This is expected to have accompanying food shortages, volcanism, refugees fleeing towards the equator, etc.

    [1] https://www.vox.com/2016/12/8/13875150/life-expectancy-us-dropped-first-time-decade [vox.com]
    [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2652 [nature.com]

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday February 05 2019, @02:09AM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday February 05 2019, @02:09AM (#796436) Journal

      That's all you've got? Maybe some big governments will decide against funding anti-aging research (unlikely, since governments are comprised of individuals, many of whom will want to live indefinitely). But they can't stop all research and countries won't act in lockstep.

      Your link between Obamacare and a tiny decrease in life expectancy is tenuous at best. Americans were fat and using lots of different drugs before Obamacare. The companies and street dealers selling opioids just want to make money. A lot more needs to be done if you want the health care system to act as population control.

      Your point #2 could be cancelled out by global warming, or simply not have the impact you think it will. And anti-aging research would continue despite turmoil. Progress will have to be made in the next decade or two if Silicon Valley billionaires want their chance at living forever. If they do make progress, it will trickle down, and could actually save people time and money if they aren't going to the hospital or nursing home for things like organ failure, strokes, dementia, etc.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 05 2019, @02:25AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 05 2019, @02:25AM (#796443)

        Maybe some big governments will decide against funding anti-aging research (unlikely, since governments are comprised of individuals, many of whom will want to live indefinitely).

        This isn't how government prevents something. They do it by funding BS research that sucks up all the oxygen from people who would actually get stuff done. See diet (food pyramid telling everyone to eat a low fat, high carb diet so they don't feel full), cancer (now it is "many diseases"), Alzheimer's (now it is "many diseases"),

        Your link between Obamacare and a tiny decrease in life expectancy is tenuous at best. Americans were fat and using lots of different drugs before Obamacare. The companies and street dealers selling opioids just want to make money. A lot more needs to be done if you want the health care system to act as population control.

        Here is a better chart: https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/655_1x_/public/images/2018/11/lifeexp_factors.png?itok=803Rzjzi&fc=50,50 [popsci.com]

        You can clearly see it is due to "Suicide" (mental issues, possibly caused by antidepressants), "Drug Overdoses" (which includes blood pressure medications, etc; not just painkillers) and liver disease (caused by overworking the liver with too many toxic chemicals). But yea, they need to be more effective at getting people on these medications before they turn 60.

        Your point #2 could be cancelled out by global warming, or simply not have the impact you think it will.

        Sure, it also may not even happen (no one really understands the solar cycle).

        Progress will have to be made in the next decade or two if Silicon Valley billionaires want their chance at living forever.

        Are they not just throwing money at the same people who generated the cancer, etc boondoggles mentioned above.