Haven\’t the numbers changed?

By 2075, the United Nations’ mid-range projection for global population growth predicts that human numbers will peak at about 9.5 billion people.

I remember when that 9 billion or so was the UN\’s low range projection.

8 thoughts on “Haven\’t the numbers changed?”

  1. They actually have changed–I think more than once, in 2010 and again in 2011. They increased projected totals quite a bit–it’s a little controversial, but they showed their work at least.

  2. And quality above quantity, Matthew. Don’t forget female emancipation, urbanisation and education.

  3. So Much for Subtlety

    bloke in france – “And quality above quantity, Matthew. Don’t forget female emancipation, urbanisation and education.”

    Don’t forget government policies that are aimed at raising GDP come what may, and so women are forced into the workforce even though most would rather be at home. And a media that relentlessly demonises people who have children and shamelessly sells divorce as a solution to every woman’s problem. For that matter, the ease of divorce which puts more pressure on women to put off having children.

    4 john malpas – “don’t forget war. dont forget certain kinds of leaders.”

    Probably the only place where this has had an effect has been the former Soviet Union.

    5 john malpas – “Oh and dont forget pestilence. Who would have forseen AIDS”

    AIDS does not appear to be having any impact on any mainstream heterosexual human population on the planet. Admittedly this is hard to work out in Africa as population figures are guesses, and they used to guess low because AIDS *must* have been killing so many people. Now they guess higher because it clearly isn’t.

  4. Probably the only place where this has had an effect has been the former Soviet Union.

    Part of the problem there is that you can’t trust the figures anyway. The population may have dropped, or it may have never been as high as they claimed. Also, rampant alcoholism.

    AIDS does not appear to be having any impact on any mainstream heterosexual human population on the planet.

    This is an interesting one. From the sort of infection rates that I remember being bandied about quite a while ago (but I haven’t read up on it for a long time), both in Africa and some SE Asian countries (Thailand springs to mind), you would have expected a massive die-off to be in progress by now. Which as you say doesn’t seem to have happened. I don’t know why.

  5. So Much for Subtlety

    Ltw – “Part of the problem there is that you can’t trust the figures anyway. The population may have dropped, or it may have never been as high as they claimed. Also, rampant alcoholism.”

    True. But the fact that Stalin had his demographers shot and hid the figures does suggest a massive disaster.

    “From the sort of infection rates that I remember being bandied about quite a while ago (but I haven’t read up on it for a long time), both in Africa and some SE Asian countries (Thailand springs to mind), you would have expected a massive die-off to be in progress by now. Which as you say doesn’t seem to have happened. I don’t know why.”

    We are still being sold bullsh!t on African HIV numbers. If a tenth of the population, the most sexually active, and also most likely to breed, segment of society has had HIV for the past three decades, their populations should have dropped. They haven’t. So therefore rates of infection cannot be that high.

    Elizabeth Pisani wrote an excellent book on AIDS but she more or less admitted this – they knew governments would not move for drug addicts, homosexuals and prostitutes. So they sold the myth of Middle Class AIDS. They told everyone it was a huge threat and inflated the figures to prove it.

    In Britain if you do not use needles to inject drugs, if you’re not engaging in passive anal intercourse, if you’re not sleeping with an African, your chances of getting HIV are trivial.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *