SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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)
Who do you think is right ? The United Nations or Darrel Bricker/John Ibbitson ?
(Score: 3, Informative) by corey on Tuesday February 05 2019, @01:35AM (12 children)
A few years ago when the world hit 7 billion, National Geographic had a special on it. They had some interesting articles about the future, one of which predicted that it would flatten out and stabilise, even decline a bit.
It was based on historical observations that as countries develop, the death rate falls due to better health care, but also the birth rate falls due to less risk. But also it falls due to women becoming more educated and working so they have less children.
Was really interesting. I can't remember what the peak was.
I stopped subscribing when they were bought by Murdoch (Fox).
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday February 05 2019, @01:43AM
Shit: guess I should have refreshed my browser: I just posted pretty much what you did.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 05 2019, @01:53AM (10 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 05 2019, @02:07AM
It sounds worthwhile to find that and put it online.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday February 05 2019, @03:09AM (2 children)
What makes you think it was a mistake? The same thing has happened with atmospheric CO2-level predictions. The UN is a political body, not a scientific one, and it shouldn't be at all surprising that their official predictions reflect politics more accurately than science.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 05 2019, @09:08AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday February 05 2019, @04:23PM
Because you said mistake, rather than "mistake" as is typically done to indicate that it was a "mistake" in name only. Nor does anything else in your post suggest you were using the term sarcastically. Words and language conventions have meaning, and I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume are using them appropriately to convey the meaning they intended.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 05 2019, @03:52AM (4 children)
It isn't just since the 90s, I've been hearing this story and reading about historical predictions since the 1960s that all continue to paint rosy pictures with one scary worst case scenario that continues to come true, but the rosier picture has to happen sooner or later, just keep waiting while we enjoy the ride...
Now I hear that China's "One Child" was never intended to stop population growth, just slow it down, and it was a great success... How in the hell can you call a program that produced millions of men without wives, while limiting couples to a single child for generations, yet population still increased at a rather strong rate (but slower than before the program) a success?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 05 2019, @04:03AM
Except that's not true. Those missing women are there, they just aren't registered. And you see similar issues in the U.S. where there are significant numbers of men in excess of women in most of the Western states and some shortfalls in parts of the East and South. This is largely an issue of internal migration and declines in the numbers of men dying prematurely.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 05 2019, @08:56AM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 05 2019, @02:26PM (1 child)
Did you lose them, or did the mind control ray make you destroy them ;-P
Sounds like a job for an eager kid, you know: somebody young enough to actually be affected by the BS in a seriously bad way. Jokes aside, I don't think the propaganda machine is strong enough to go destroying old newspaper microfilm/microfiche, but I do think it is strong enough to severely bias the historical information that's available online. The "Wayback Machine" is pretty good for what it covers, but it only reaches back about 25 years now.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Troll) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 05 2019, @06:54PM
Did you lose them, or did the mind control ray make you destroy them ;-P
When he realized they didn't support his hypothesis he shredded them.
See my other post on how accurate they actually turned out. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 05 2019, @06:51PM
The Accuracy of Past Projections [nap.edu]
If you look at the graph:
1990: 3.3%
1992: 2.8%
1994: 1.7%
1996: 0.5%
So they started out pretty damn accurate and proceeded to get even more accurate through the 90's.