Based on the poll below, of the 84.3% who do think the population will drop to 4 billion or fewer by 2100, the mean expected year based on the data in this poll is 2053. I'd take the "over" on this. - ThreadSky

climatecasino.net • 4 days ago

Based on the poll below, of the 84.3% who do think the population will drop to 4 billion or fewer by 2100, the mean expected year based on the data in this poll is 2053.

I'd take the "over" on this.

Comments

foehammer01.bsky.social•4 days ago

In the last few years I began to wonder if we can accurately model this. Our data seems to be regularly unreliable.

clonalantibody.bsky.social•4 days ago

It is hard to see how that collapse could occur by 2053, unless there is a total collapse of the food supply - if that happens, the population would be much lower perhaps 1 to 2 billion. Look at the 2025 population pyramid
https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/2025/

clonalantibody.bsky.social•4 days ago

The other option for that sharp a decline would be a "Nuclear Winter"

solenodon.bsky.social•4 days ago

Currently, about 62 million people die annually, because people don't live forever. By 2050, the UN projects about 92 million will die annually. Just to take a rough mid point of 77 million/year X 30 years = 2.3 billion deaths over 30 years.

solenodon.bsky.social•4 days ago

If we stopped withholding birth control and abortion rights, we might see a decline in population size by attrition as a result of family choice.

solenodon.bsky.social•4 days ago

But that's unlikely, partly because of population momentum, and partly because about a third of the world's health clinics are run by the Catholic church and many more, like those funded by the US, are also discouraged from providing birth control or abortions to families who want them.

nonviolence.bsky.social•4 days ago

Scholar AI says there will be no top soil left by 2080. This means zero food and no life on land.

Back to you, Jim.
https://bsky.app/profile/nonviolence.bsky.social/post/3ll5ejqyvus2w

slightreturn.bsky.social•4 days ago

And phosphorus is fast depleting also. Not to mention building sand, potable water from aquifers, high grade ores for essential metals such as copper....

nonviolence.bsky.social•4 days ago

Yes! Can we find 'P'?

slightreturn.bsky.social•4 days ago

I am NOT at all hopeful. And I have step-children, so I wish I could say otherwise.

nonviolence.bsky.social•4 days ago

World3 model updates below. Given all the data we have, it'd be really really strange if we saw more than 4 bn humans by 2080. James Lovelock sees 7 billion gone by 2100?
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jiec.13442

avianandloaded.bsky.social•4 days ago

I would too, Professor, but it wouldn't surprise me if it happens before then given the fragility of virtually every biological, economic and societal system on the planet right now. And of course, the unknown unknowns.

bro-wtf.bsky.social•4 days ago

Yeah, it would need to be something like a pandemic or war that causes sudden rapid population collapse.

Maybe a tipping point being triggered, but yeah, unlikely.

avianandloaded.bsky.social•4 days ago

Something as simple as ending fossil fuel use will kill half the humans on the planet, since fossil fuels are the only way to continue the Haber-Bosch process that provides enough ammonia for fertilizer to feed four billion humans. 1/2

avianandloaded.bsky.social•4 days ago

Also ending fossil fuel use means untold more human deaths because most life-saving medications are not possible without fossil fuel inputs.

Like I said, everything is far more fragile than most realize or anyone will admit.

2/2

bro-wtf.bsky.social•4 days ago

I agree on both points. I don't think we'll stop using fossil fuels, at least not willingly, any time soon.

avianandloaded.bsky.social•4 days ago

Oil will stop being extracted the day those making a profit on it realize they no longer can. Capitalists don't do anything at all unless they can make a profit on it, preferably coinciding with exploiting as many workers as possible to create maximum suffering.

polyphren.bsky.social•4 days ago

I did formally study population, and still remember some some of the forecasts from studies in the 80's. What I continue to find is that most confuse birth rates and fertility rates, still do not understand any important details, and forget to look at all factors. Yes, take the "over".

solenodon.bsky.social•4 days ago

Like population momentum, age of parents when offspring are born, and lifespan.

polyphren.bsky.social•4 days ago

One prediction that I did like in the 80's was a peak of 9 billion around 2035, still think this is the better prediction, and really never see anyone mentioning this, but then again, very few ever did study population. Most will parrot old UN study of 10 billion for a peak.

polyphren.bsky.social•4 days ago

But to keep things "light", am willing to bet 100 rupees on decline to 4 billion sometime in July of 2079. And if I win, expect to be paid!

avianandloaded.bsky.social•4 days ago

I only wager in quatloos and I am not sure of the exchange rate.

polyphren.bsky.social•4 days ago

100 rupees is less than 1 Euro, way less.......

pitbullmtkerr.bsky.social•4 days ago

I will add that we have only .5 percent water on earth that is useable and available freshwater. Every article I read on low capacity on lake or River it’s climate change and overconsumption. Since we don’t address climate change it could be worse.

barrtecforever.bsky.social•4 days ago

By the way Rainforest I’m okay.

Water is another one of those tipping points in the unfolding poly and meta-crisis.

There’s a recent book by Liam Fox “The Coming Storm - (subtitle) Why water will write the 21st Century”, check it out.
https://youtu.be/RUHTvHedraQ?si=SL3TIuTUa9sxsy0Z 🤔

wtfdor.bsky.social•4 days ago

That was following the sustainability approach, Americans have trump now so who knows

d3v1ls7h3r4p157.bsky.social•4 days ago

From what baseline (max. number of people) are you betting your "over" on Professor? Although I'm not sure if it makes a big difference if 50% or 33% die off suddenly.

Seems #hu-ams can't even count (see below).
And we claim we can model the world. 🫣

Perhaps #hu-mans become 100% infertile by 2050

hua1972.bsky.social•4 days ago

marsanges.bsky.social•4 days ago

Indeed. This graph is all that needs to be shown.
The expectations of impossible short dates are not actual forecasts, they are simply expressions of a sense of impending doom. And that sense is totally correct. Its not quantitatively correct though.

perspectiveonrisk.bsky.social•4 days ago

UN's most recent (2022) projection is >10 billion people in 2100. Lancet (2000) projects 8.8 billion (and >6 billion in a low fertility scenario). Something would have to happen in Africa right now to lead to a scenario where global pop <4 billion by 2100

gs2u.bsky.social•4 days ago

There are only a few missed meals between culture and anarchy. I don't think even "the experts" understand how fragile the logistics are to feed billions and how many ways there are for it to fall apart. Look at it as entropy and understand the amount of extra energy going into the system.

collapsewatch3.bsky.social•4 days ago

To imagine that 4 billion people would perish on this planet in the next 30 years is beyond imagining
The simple necessity of dealing with mass trauma, everyone has lost everything, what do you do with 4 billion bodies? Disease, vermin, starvation, chaos, violence

I'd be long gone that's for sure

chris134.bsky.social•4 days ago

I wish I had your optimism and spelling ability. Hi I'm the guy from SB and got high at bugs in a jar with Hambone.
Wishing the birds a long life

vondeckard.bsky.social•4 days ago

Crucial calorie crops like maize and wheat will almost certainly have started to fail before this point, but not to the tune of 4 billion dead through starvation.
2053 will be a bad time to be human on earth.
No one will be able to ignore climate change. It will be ripping us a new one.

vondeckard.bsky.social•4 days ago

And it will only get worse still.
Unlivable planet incoming. At a rapid pace.

vondeckard.bsky.social•4 days ago

Only scenario where it happens before 2053 is with massively destructive wars (nukes), due to escalating tensions leading to fights over resources/livable land caused by climate change.
2053 is too low. Unrealistic

paulbaumann42.bsky.social•4 days ago

I might mention a real pandemic or two, a strike by an asteroid or comet, growing infertility due to chemical poisoning of the environment and roughly 10 % dying early due to Corona caused MECFS by than. And artificial (lack of aid) and real nutrition crisis. It could be earlier, my money is on 2070

gs2u.bsky.social•4 days ago

Food production & logistics are much more fragile than people want to understand and the amount of energy increase in the system is itself increasing. Failed/destroyed crops, closed harbours and borders, wars over resources, pogroms, extreme weather events and lack of potable water, it adds up fast.

anotherwealth.bsky.social•4 days ago

How many deaths have I caused with my North America lifestyle? Assuming 4 billion gone as per this survey.

anotherwealth.bsky.social•4 days ago

As a student of anthropology, I cheer for survey data. One of the four primary research methods when investigating humans. Can we point out the relative causal populations? By nation state overshoot? My latest has North America over time showing generations. PlanetYears as units!!

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply