Discussion:
Q: What will the world be like with 11 billion people?
Add Reply
Dave P.
2020-03-11 20:47:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Q: What will the world be like with 11 billion people?
A: Don't know, don't care!

Q. 4000 died of Covid-19. How many died of all causes?
How many births? What's the total population?
A: Don't know, don't care!
l***@yahoo.com
2020-03-11 23:39:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If anyone's interested, since 1927, when we had 2 billion people, the population has doubled every 40-50 years. (Even if you started counting in 1965, the end of the baby boom, it took just 41 years to go from 3.3 billion to 6.6 billion.)

We reached 4 billion in 1975, 7 billion in 2011, and we may well reach 8 billion in Jan. 2023.

But at the same time, it looks as though, starting in 1975, the formula has changed to "we will increase by 1 billion every 12 years." Or fewer than 12 years. So we could easily reach 11 billion by 2057 or so. (I don't understand those officials who keep claiming that we'll only be at 9.5 billion by 2050 - do the math. Why would we "level off" by then when we haven't done it already? Even by 1945, WWII didn't cause the global population to drop below what it was in 1939!)

But if Covid-19 causes everyone over age 60 to drop dead in five years - that is, most of the remaining baby boomers - it will be interesting to see if the masses are smart enough to realize that maybe we DON'T need all the babies that pro-natalists are insisting we produce, for the economy's sake. (Hint: Yes, having too few babies causes economic problems - but so does having too many babies, and another problem is that children who are unwanted, unloved or seriously handicapped are not returnable. Whereas if affluent childfree couples change their minds and decide to have babies, that's no big deal.)



Lenona.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-03-11 23:43:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Oh, and https://www.worldometers.info/ is a fun, useful site - but I find it odd that the global population always lists exactly(?) 9,300 more people per hour.

We'll see. (I expect a LOT of people will have less sex and/or fewer babies over the next two years.)


Lenona.
Louis Epstein
2020-03-12 02:57:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
If anyone's interested, since 1927, when we had 2 billion people, the population has doubled every 40-50 years. (Even if you started counting in 1965, the end of the baby boom, it took just 41 years to go from 3.3 billion to 6.6 billion.)
We reached 4 billion in 1975, 7 billion in 2011, and we may well reach 8 billion in Jan. 2023.
But at the same time, it looks as though, starting in 1975, the formula has changed to "we will increase by 1 billion every 12 years." Or fewer than 12 years. So we could easily reach 11 billion by 2057 or so. (I don't understand those officials who keep claiming that we'll only be at 9.5 billion by 2050 - do the math. Why would we "level off" by then when we haven't done it already? Even by 1945, WWII didn't cause the global population to drop below what it was in 1939!)
But if Covid-19 causes everyone over age 60 to drop dead in five years - that
is, most of the remaining baby boomers -
Highly unlikely.
Note also that there are living people born as far back as 1903...
a long way from the Boom epoch.
And this may be the year we finally elect a president of the USA
from the pre-Boom "Silent" generation (not long after the LDS Church
lost its first Silent president and he was replaced by a man from,
in Strauss/Howe terms,the generation before that...if everyone over
60 died that church would lose its ENTIRE top echelon).
Post by l***@yahoo.com
it will be interesting to see if the masses are smart enough to realize that
maybe we DON'T need all the babies that pro-natalists are insisting we produce,
for the economy's sake. (Hint: Yes, having too few babies causes economic
problems - but so does having too many babies, and another problem is that
children who are unwanted, unloved or seriously handicapped are not returnable.
Whereas if affluent childfree couples change their minds and decide to have
babies, that's no big deal.)
Lenona.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-03-12 17:34:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
And this may be the year we finally elect a president of the USA
from the pre-Boom "Silent" generation
What do you know - you're quite right!

Bush Senior and Jimmy Carter were both born in 1924 and the next president to be born was...Trump. In 1946.

If he wins again, that virtually guarantees NO one from the Silent Generation will ever become president.

In the meantime, does anyone know why, just because Gen 13 is also known as Gen X, that meant that the next two generations "had" to get named Y and Z? Isn't that a bit too ominous? As if we were living in the End Times or something? And what will the next generation get named? (I assume that generation starts either this year or next year.)

More on the Strauss–Howe generational theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory



Lenona.
Louis Epstein
2020-03-12 21:51:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Louis Epstein
And this may be the year we finally elect a president of the USA
from the pre-Boom "Silent" generation
What do you know - you're quite right!
Bush Senior and Jimmy Carter were both born in 1924 and the next president to be
born was...Trump. In 1946.
If he wins again, that virtually guarantees NO one from the Silent Generation
will ever become president.
The first Boomer was elected in 1992 and here we are 28 years later with
no Silent yet.

The LDS Church moved off the Strauss/Howe power arc a long time ago,
as it was founded by members of the Transcendental Generation who were
pushed out of power in the decade after the Civil War on the political
stage,but the life-tenured LDS apostles stayed on until they died (every
church president from 1830 to 1901 being born between 1801 and 1814).
Where JFK sent word forth from his time and place that the torch had
been passed to his generation in 1961,the first president of the USA
younger than Kennedy was Carter,elected in 1976,and the first LDS president
younger than Kennedy was Monson,who succeeded in 2008...when JFK was
assassinated the sitting LDS president was older than Herbert Hoover
and would be succeeded by a man older than FDR.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
In the meantime, does anyone know why, just because Gen 13 is also known as Gen
X, that meant that the next two generations "had" to get named Y and Z? Isn't
that a bit too ominous? As if we were living in the End Times or something? And
what will the next generation get named? (I assume that generation starts either
this year or next year.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory
Neil Howe (William Strauss died in 2007) uses the name "Homeland" for the
generation after the "Millennials" and has the oldest of them already
in their teens...
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Lenona.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Dave P.
2020-03-20 06:16:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
If anyone's interested, since 1927, when we had 2 billion people, the population has doubled every 40-50 years. (Even if you started counting in 1965, the end of the baby boom, it took just 41 years to go from 3.3 billion to 6.6 billion.)
We reached 4 billion in 1975, 7 billion in 2011, and we may well reach 8 billion in Jan. 2023.
The more people we have, the closer we live to various animals,
and greater likelihood of viruses, ticks, etc jumping from them to us.
When I was growing up, we never saw any deer. They were in the woods.
Now, with the woods gone, they're strolling thru yards in the
afternoon, hunting acorns, and pooping on the lawns, etc.
Extending life spans as much as possible by suppressing communicable
diseases has consequences. If you're not aware of the consequences,
then you're not looking at the big picture.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
But at the same time, it looks as though, starting in 1975, the formula has changed to "we will increase by 1 billion every 12 years." Or fewer than 12 years. So we could easily reach 11 billion by 2057 or so. (I don't understand those officials who keep claiming that we'll only be at 9.5 billion by 2050 - do the math. Why would we "level off" by then when we haven't done it already? Even by 1945, WWII didn't cause the global population to drop below what it was in 1939!)
But if Covid-19 causes everyone over age 60 to drop dead in five years - that is, most of the remaining baby boomers - it will be interesting to see if the masses are smart enough to realize that maybe we DON'T need all the babies that pro-natalists are insisting we produce, for the economy's sake. (Hint: Yes, having too few babies causes economic problems - but so does having too many babies, and another problem is that children who are unwanted, unloved or seriously handicapped are not returnable. Whereas if affluent childfree couples change their minds and decide to have babies, that's no big deal.)
Loading...