 |
| |
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:26
|
|
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993444
quote:
Global population forecast falls
11:18 27 February 03
NewScientist.com news service
Fast-falling birth rates and rising AIDS deaths are stifling the population explosion - and could lead to a decline in global population in the second half of the 21st century.
In new forecasts released on Wednesday evening, UN demographers cut 400 million from their best estimate of the world's population in 2050. Joseph Chamie, the head of the UN population division in New York, said he now expected 8.9 billion people on Earth in 2050, rather than the 9.3 billion that he forecast in 2002. The current figure is 6.3 billion.
The 400-million reduction equates to the current populations of the US, Canada and Mexico combined. Chamie said half arose from birth rates falling faster than expected and the other half was due to rising forecasts of the death toll from AIDS. "HIV/AIDS is a disease of mass destruction," he said.
The new population projections stretch to the year 2050, but not beyond. However, he warned that "fertility rates will be below replacement levels in three-quarters of the world by 2050". The great majority of women worldwide will be having fewer than two children.
Radical re-think
In fact, the new projections assume that most countries will eventually approach a fertility rate of 1.85 children per woman. This represents a clear break with past thinking - demographers had always assumed countries would settle down to replacement fertility levels.
Chamie agrees that it has "momentous" implications for humanity. After a time-lag during which past "baby boom" generations pass through child-bearing age, it will cause most countries to go into a demographic decline.
The detailed projections for individual countries show 33 countries with smaller populations in 2050 than today. Japan is expected to be 14 per cent smaller; Italy 22 per cent; and a slew of eastern European countries, including Russia and Ukraine, will see their populations crash by between 30 and 50 per cent.
Inward migration
The population of South Africa and three neighbours is also expected to reduce, but as a result of the AIDS. Chamie predicts the disease will have claimed 278 million lives by mid-century.
The US is expected to be one of a handful of developed nations whose population will continue to grow strongly, largely through an inward migration of more than a million people a year.
The US population is predicted to rise from 285 million now to 409 million in 2050. The UK is also expected to have more people then, rising from 59 million to 66 million.
The next five decades are also set to see a massive ageing of the world population. The number of people over 80 will rise fivefold. The median citizen - the one with half the world older than him or her and half younger, will be aged 37 in 2050, compared to 26 today.
Fred Pearce
|
Some figures ('000s) of 'expectation' population in 2050 and 2000 (actual)
code:
Country 2000 2050
World 6,070,581 8,918,724
China 1,275,215 1,395,182
Germany 82,282 79,145
India 1,016,938 1,531,438
Iraq 23,224 57,932
Italy 57,536 47,875
Japan 127,134 109,772
Mexico 98,933 140,228
Nigeria 114,746 258,478
Russia 145,612 101,456
UK 58,689 66,166
USA 285,003 408,695
http://www.un.org/esa/population/pu...annextables.PDF
Last edited by Dauphin on 27-02-2003 at 18:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:26
|
|
Those are massive growth rates for Nigeria and India, and also for the US.
Damn, have less kids people - are you INSANE? Well, I'll do my part - kids are so annoying I don't want more than one at the most, or none, preferably.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
el freako
|
 |
Bristol, European Union
Oct 1999
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Those are massive growth rates for Nigeria and India, and also for the US.
Damn, have less kids people - are you INSANE? Well, I'll do my part - kids are so annoying I don't want more than one at the most, or none, preferably. |
Surely you mean massive growth (i.e. in absolute terms), the rate of growth is actually fairly slow compared with the previous 50 years.
Average annual growth rate in population, 1950-2000 & 2000-2050:
United States: 1.2%, 0.7%
India: 2.1%, 0.8%
Nigeria: 2.7%, 1.6%
What is interesting is the large upward revision in the forecasts of population in Europe, in 2050 the EU's population is now forecast to be 9% higher than before (much of it coming in Germany, Britian, Italy & Spain), whereas population in the US is now forecast to be 3% higher than before and population in the rest of the developed world (Japan, Canada, Australia etc) is forecast to be lower than the previous forecast.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:26
|
|
If your country needs young people to get over the baby boomer bump, increase immigration from the Philippines. These are generally really nice people in need of a job. Also, they are mostly Catholic so they don't go around blowing stuff up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VJ
|
 |
Helsinki
Dec 2001
time: 07:26
|
|
quote:
OTOH, the former Soviet republics are losing massive amounts of people. Estonia's apparently going to lose 51,9% of its population by 2050. Russia 30,3%. What's happening there, are they all emigrating to India |
Large mortality rate due to drugs, AIDS, depression (both economical and invididual),
obscure alcohol usage and disastrous state of the public health care.
1,0-1,5 children / woman - people don't want to have kids because they're costly,
and they wouldn't get any jobs for them anyway from there.
Atrocitious state of the environment (pollution, radiaton).
Relatively large immigration because of poor economical conditions.
Overall, lot's of **** which could have been avoided if Reagan would've not
been waving his penis by destroying USSR during the Gorba-era.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Either way, capitalism as we know it is doomed. Our alternatives will be fascism or socialism. |
I just got a feeling of deja vu. Now where did I see that prediction before?
Ah, yes. Eric Blair said it in a variety of writings throughout the late 30's. He was a very intelligent man, a perfect example of someone who sees so much and yet manages to be utterly wrong.
On topic, we have known for some time now that population will level off somewhere around nine billion, and then begin a decline. Aging populations will cause a serious problem, as they are already starting to in some countries.
Of course, they cause the most problems for government pension systems. It is socialism, not capitalism, that will suffer most as the proportion of retired people increases.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000
time: 01:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Uhm, IRA, Basque terrorists, Puerto Rican terrorists, Quebec seperatists, Corsician seperatists, etc. As for Philippine Catholic terrorists, ever hear of the Huk? |
For the record, Quebec separatists only had one brief fling with terrorist activities in 1970, in what came to be known as the October Crisis. Once that radical cell was broken up, they've never been any trouble.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Felch X
Increased wages mean a growth in the potential market for goods. American facotry wages during the middle of the 20th century rose a great deal in real terms (although that rise has not continued recently in the service sector) and contributed to the development of the middle class. |
Wages do not rise as fast as productivity, so even as wages rise, profits rise higher. Wages can only rise as long as profitablity rises, and profitability can only rise as long as there are new markets. This growth can coming from the naturally increasing population or from countries that were previously not part of the capitalist system joining it, but there must always be growth. Without growth there is stagnation, and stagnation has historically led to repression and collapse.
Fascism was a direct result of this in the 1920s and 30s. Capitalism was saved when the USSR collapsed and China opened its markets, giving capitalism new room to grow. The only other way to get around this problem is world war, which destrpyed massive amounts of capital and productive forces, thus clearing the way for new growth (which is what Blair didn't understand - but Trotsky did).
quote:
Capitalism doesn't need new markets to thrive. It can quite easily exist without any new markets. It's simply a system where the means of production are owned by people richer than any of us. |
It isn't simply anything. It is a dynamic system based fundimentally on growth. The "problem" with capitalism is that it is more productive than it can manage. It always produces more than can be consumed. Without full consumption, profits can't be realized. If profits can't be realized, wages have to be cut, which decreases consumption even more, and so on into a death spiral.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Felch
|
 |
Germantown, Maryland
Sep 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Wages do not rise as fast as productivity, so even as wages rise, profits rise higher. Wages can only rise as long as profitablity rises, and profitability can only rise as long as there are new markets. This growth can coming from the naturally increasing population or from countries that were previously not part of the capitalist system joining it, but there must always be growth. Without growth there is stagnation, and stagnation has historically led to repression and collapse.
|
Growth can also come from higher wages in the working classes.
quote:
Fascism was a direct result of this in the 1920s and 30s. Capitalism was saved when the USSR collapsed and China opened its markets, giving capitalism new room to grow. The only other way to get around this problem is world war, which destrpyed massive amounts of capital and productive forces, thus clearing the way for new growth (which is what Blair didn't understand - but Trotsky did).
It isn't simply anything. It is a dynamic system based fundimentally on growth. The "problem" with capitalism is that it is more productive than it can manage. It always produces more than can be consumed. Without full consumption, profits can't be realized. If profits can't be realized, wages have to be cut, which decreases consumption even more, and so on into a death spiral. |
We seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion. I believe that the produce of capitalism is less than what people want. That's why people want more money. More money means more stuff. People want stuff, they don't have all the stuff that they want, and new stuff is being invented or improved all the time to make them want it.
I'm sorry, but that's always been so self-evident to me, that it's never occured to me that anyone would think differently. The thought that more stuff is produced than wanted just doesn't mesh with reality as I perceive it. It also wouldn't make much sense in capitalism, where making too much of something is bad for business. Companies don't need war to destroy capital, they simply make enough widgets to satisfy demand for widgets and then move onto making gizmos, until the gizmo market is flooded, and then they develop new and improved widgets, and so on.
I guess if you don't think in those terms, there's not much to do but agree to disagree. Different ways of looking at the same situation will usually produce different predictions for the future.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-02-2003 18:01
|