World population to keep growing this century, hit 11 billion by 2100

September 18, 2014
The top panel shows total world population projected to 2100. Dotted lines are the range or error using the older scenario method, while shaded regions are the uncertainties using statistical methods. The darker shading is the 80 percent confidence bars, and the lighter shading shows the 95 percent confidence bars. At the bottom are the population projections for each continent. Credit: A. Raftery / Univ. of Washington

Using modern statistical tools, a new study led by the University of Washington and the United Nations finds that world population is likely to keep growing throughout the 21st century. The number of people on Earth is likely to reach 11 billion by 2100, the study concludes, about 2 billion higher than some previous estimates.

The paper published online Sept. 18 in the journal Science includes the most up-to-date estimates for future , as well as a new method for creating such estimates.

"The consensus over the past 20 years or so was that world population, which is currently around 7 billion, would go up to 9 billion and level off or probably decline," said corresponding author Adrian Raftery, a UW professor of statistics and of sociology. "We found there's a 70 percent probability the world population will not stabilize this century. Population, which had sort of fallen off the world's agenda, remains a very important issue."

The paper explains the most recent United Nations population data released in July. This is the first U.N. population report to use modern statistics, known as Bayesian statistics, that combines all available information to generate better predictions.

Most of the anticipated growth is in Africa, where population is projected to quadruple from around 1 billion today to 4 billion by the end of the century. The main reason is that birth rates in sub-Saharan Africa have not been going down as fast as had been expected. There is an 80 percent chance that the population in Africa at the end of the century will be between 3.5 and 5.1 billion people.

Other regions of the world are projected to see less change. Asia, now 4.4 billion, is projected to peak at around 5 billion people in 2050 and then begin to decline. Populations in North America, Europe, and Latin America and the Caribbean are projected to stay below 1 billion each.

The figures largely support the 2013 U.N. projections but add a new dimension, said first author Patrick Gerland, a demographer at the U.N.

"Earlier projections were strictly based on scenarios, so there was no uncertainty," Gerland said. "This work provides a more statistically driven assessment that allows us to quantify the predictions, and offer a confidence interval that could be useful in planning." World population projections are based mostly on two things: future life expectancy and fertility rates. Earlier techniques relied largely on expert opinion for how those trends were expected to change.

The newer forecast instead uses statistical methods to combine government data and expert forecasts for such things as mortality rates, fertility rates and international migration.

Also, earlier reports represented uncertainty by using scenarios in which women would have 0.5 children more or less than the experts' forecast.

That method, Raftery said, generates too great a range.

"In a given year and country the fertility rate might be half a child higher, but the probability that it would be half a child higher in all countries in all years in the future is very low," Raftery said.

The new method uses statistical models to narrow the range, finding an 80 percent probability that the population in 2100 will be between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion.

"This paper brings together the research from the past seven years, and also brings in recent data," Raftery said. "We can answer questions about future population growth using standard principles of statistical inference, which has never really been done before."

Rising population could act to exacerbate other world problems, such as climate change, infectious disease and poverty, he said. Studies show that the two things that decrease are more access to contraceptives and education of girls and women, Raftery said.

Explore further: World population could be nearly 11 billion by 2100, research shows

More information: "World population stabilization unlikely this century," by P. Gerland et al. Science, 2014: www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1257469

Related Stories

How many will we be? Are population estimates off the mark?

February 20, 2011

In 2011 the Earth's population will reach 7 billion. The United Nations (UN) reports that the total number of people will climb to 9 billion in 2050, peak at 9.5 billion, stabilize temporarily, and then decline. Despite the ...

World population to surpass 7 billion in 2011

July 28, 2011

Global population is expected to hit 7 billion later this year, up from 6 billion in 1999. Between now and 2050, an estimated 2.3 billion more people will be added—nearly as many as inhabited the planet as recently as ...

Recommended for you

Fossils reveal unseen 'footprint' maker

January 17, 2017

Fossils found in Morocco from the long-extinct group of sea creatures called trilobites, including rarely seen soft-body parts, may be previously unseen animals that left distinctive fossil 'footprints' around the ancient ...

Study finds links between swearing and honesty

January 16, 2017

It's long been associated with anger and coarseness but profanity can have another, more positive connotation. Psychologists have learned that people who frequently curse are being more honest. Writing in the journal Social ...

51 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Scottingham
3.3 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2014
"Most of the anticipated growth is in Africa, where population is projected to quadruple from around 1 billion today to 4 billion by the end of the century."

Even after Ebola is all said and done?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (15) Sep 18, 2014
"world population is likely to keep growing throughout the 21st century"

-unless, of course, something just as catastrophic happens.
population is projected to quadruple from around 1 billion today to 4 billion by the end of the century. The main reason is that birth rates in sub-Saharan Africa have not been going down as fast as had been expected. There is an 80 percent chance that the population in Africa at the end of the century will be between 3.5 and 5.1 billion people
-Does anyone doubt that this is the direct fault of religion? Women being forced to do nothing else but make and raise children. Gods who promise to provide for however many babies those women produce.

Men who see their children starving and decide to take what they need from those less deserving because they cannot wait any longer for god to deliver.
foolspoo
2.7 / 5 (9) Sep 18, 2014
Religion has harmed this planet in many many ways Otto, but that is a very bold claim. Dogmatic or not, humans seek to reproduce. It is the only purpose we have.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 18, 2014
Great theory. Have to wait 85 years to falsify.
teslaberry
3.3 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2014
world war 2 had very little effect on population growth because agricultural technology and capital provided was leveraged to how many people could leave/ kicked off their land and then filter into cities.

'growth' in population will continue globally until the vast vast majority of people currently working in agriculture are all in cities or ex-urbs.

over 50% of indians still work in agriculture.
less than 2% of westerners do and if you don't include seasonal workers and include expected automation of seasonal manual labor (fruit picking robots), <1%.

india has 400 million peasants that must either move to cities or die off while what progeny they have moves to the cities. same with africa and china.

'growth' will continue as part of the evoluition of the swarm hive of techno-sapiens until we all move into cities . then population growth stops.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (15) Sep 18, 2014
Religion has harmed this planet in many many ways Otto, but that is a very bold claim
The surviving religions are the ones which have maximized their ability to outgrow and overrun their counterparts. Religious morality uniformly condemns anything which would reduce the birthrate - family planning, non-procreative sex, onanism, etc.
world war 2 had very little effect on population growth because agricultural technology and capital provided was leveraged to how many people could leave/ kicked off their land and then filter into cities
The world wars destroyed the religion-based eurasian cultures which through their growth rates were the CAUSE of those wars. Most of europe has achieved zero growth whereas before the wars their pops were growing at the same rate as those in the middle east.

The direct result has been enduring peace across the entire northern part of the continent.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2014
"It is the competition of life" Sumner (1911) asserted, "which makes war, and that is why war always has existed and always will. It is the condition of human existence" (quoted in van der Dennen, 1990: 153)... When population presses upon the land supply, earth-hunger arises, races of men move across the face of the world, militarism and imperialism flourish, and conflict rages. Where men are few and soil is abundant, the struggle for existence is less savage: "Wherever there is no war, there we find that there is no crowding"
humans seek to reproduce. It is the only purpose we have
Our tropical repro rate coupled with our ability to eliminate our natural attritive elements means that overpop has always been our main problem. Early civilizations could never gain a foothold before they were destroyed.

Societies which could maximize their growth to build walled cities and field large armies, could beat this equation. Religion was the way this way this was accomplished.
Shitead
1 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2014
The world population in the year 2100 will be far closer to 1/2 billion people than 11 billion. Determining how we achieve that sustainable number will be the prime task of the world's population for the next 20 years. If no answer is found in that time period, then the problem will take care of itself and humanity will join the extinction of the other large mammal species.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 18, 2014
The world population in the year 2100 will be far closer to 1/2 billion people than 11 billion. Determining how we achieve that sustainable number will be the prime task of the world's population for the next 20 years. If no answer is found in that time period, then the problem will take care of itself and humanity will join the extinction of the other large mammal species.
Is this your work?
http://en.wikiped...destones
NOM
5 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2014
Even after Ebola is all said and done?
The death toll from the current outbreak is multiplying by 10 every 3 months. So it could be close to 20 million in a years time.
Dug
4.4 / 5 (5) Sep 18, 2014
"Earlier projections were strictly based on scenarios, so there was no uncertainty," Gerland said.

Yes and this is very different. No, really it is. This is based on statistics and scenarios created by "experts" - even though they are many of the same "experts" that created the earlier population growth estimates.

Just because you used statistics to analyze your guesswork - doesn't change your "data" from being just guesses. The fact is no one has an accurate grasp on populations even in countries with some sort of a semblance of a census - like the US. Even here I doubt we are are within in 10% of estimating our standing population at any particular time because of porous borders and unknown numbers of unregistered immigrants - and poor census recording protocols.

Ironic though. Our species apparently originated in Africa and it looks like it might find it's end there as well.
stripeless_zebra
2.2 / 5 (5) Sep 18, 2014
Game over for mountain gorillas and other rare species. Our only hope is in Ebola.
teslaberry
5 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2014
nigeria----ww3 estimated 30million now. 170 or so.

fastest growth in africa in absolute terms per square km. staggering level of growth that is now resulting in overcrowding and civil conflict as we speak.
verkle
Sep 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Sep 19, 2014
Those who are worried by this article should take a moment to reflect on how Africa affects their lives. I would wager it's negligible to none, as it sucks the least resources of all continents. So, if you are still worried, then do the world a favor and find the closest bridge, since you believe the world can do with one less person.
Rute
1 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2014
Btw. verkle, there's a theory that states that WW3 started on 9/11 2001. Digging a bit deeper, one sees that the situations in Russia's bordering states are part of the same conflict. Take a look at influential 1997 book "Foundations of Geopolitics"* by Alexander Dugin used by the General Staff Academy of Russia to see why. A clash between NATO and Russia is inevitable.

*Excerpts:
-"The Eurasian Empire will be constructed "on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us."
-"The book stresses the "continental Russian-Islamic alliance"
-"Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable" [HAS HAPPENED]
-"Ukraine should be annexed by Russia" [IS HAPPENING]
-"Finland should be absorbed into Russia" [TO HAPPEN?]

-Wikipedia
grondilu
5 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2014
Those who are worried by this article should take a moment to reflect on how Africa affects their lives. I would wager it's negligible to none, as it sucks the least resources of all continents. So, if you are still worried, then do the world a favor and find the closest bridge, since you believe the world can do with one less person.


People who worry about that will probably be dead in 2100 so they probably worry about their children.
Rute
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2014
Those who are worried by this article should take a moment to reflect on how Africa affects their lives. I would wager it's negligible to none

Not true. There have been massive influxes of people to Europe from countries such as Somalia and Sudan due to their large population growth coupled with conflicts that force people to become asylum seekers. For example, in Sweden the refugees and their family reunification counts for 32% of the total immigration, which is over 100,000 people per year. In 2013, the number of Somalis in Sweden reached 54,221.
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2014
Those who are worried by this article should take a moment to reflect on how Africa affects their lives. I would wager it's negligible to none, as it sucks the least resources of all continents. So, if you are still worried, then do the world a favor and find the closest bridge, since you believe the world can do with one less person.


Mass immigration from Africa can affect me (tough that has more to do with bad immigration policy than number of Africans). And one can also be worried for purely humanitarian reasons, such overcrowding would be catastrophic for Africa and people living there. Does your empathy only extend to people who affect you?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2014
Half bummer: "I have good news and I have bad news...". But it is only 30 % more than the most optimistic scenarios, and 20 % over consensus. Not too bad.

[Of course, it is the first time for this method in the area. Need a repeat.]

"Studies show that the two things that decrease fertility rates are more access to contraceptives and education of girls and women, Raftery said."

And so less influence of the major religious sects is important, and vice versa their influence decrease when social functionality (less insecurity) increase. It is a win-win.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2014
@Scottingham: You have to go back to the early 19th century to find epidemics that affect population much. (Spanish flu.) And as societies mature, they influence becomes less. Ebola is a local problem.

[Also, it's kill rate had to go down from 90+% to 55 % before it could spread far. That is typical for epidemics. Expect next round to be even less deadly.]

Currently malaria is the worst killer. We have lived with that harmful parasite for millenniums.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2014
@TGO, verkle: "something just as catastrophic". "the direct fault of religion"; "[war] could destroy"?

Catastrophic? Direct? War? Population growth when resources becomes plenty is natural; religion is bad but not the major driving force; war attrition is negligible today. But we are doing a good job of counteracting all, because large families are expensive and secure societies means less religiosity and wars.

The article described how contraceptives (accessible for many more as relative poverty decrease) and education is strongest driving forces, not wars - you just didn't read it. (Typical for the verkle troll, btw.) Wars kills very few today, ~ 1/50 of total murder rate, and the incidence is projected to decrease (Singer; latest conflict science re the Arabic Spring wars).
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2014
@ryggesogn: More like 5-10 years in theory, because the time horizons are like climate. A generation is ~ 25 years. In actuality they can test on past data. Like climate science.

@Dug: Wrong. Go to Gapminder and look up the statistics and its uncertainties by yourself.

FWIW, Rosling flagged this science as it appeared before press 2 months ago, and accepts its findings.

@Rute: True, and OECD found 2013 that Europe earns _a lot_ in absolute amounts by having this immigration. Sweden more than most, I got that we earn 1-3 % more GDP out of the OECD statistics.

So yes, immigration and especially asylum immigration affects Sweden positively (on average) and their origin nations negatively (on average).

Relatively though it is just a minor benefit. The main thing for me is that it is egalitarian, consistent with human rights and especially Sweden's history. (I don't like nationalism, but since ironically the local detractors claim 'nationalism', it must be pointed out.)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2014
each single one is created so unique and special
Nice sentiment. We need to consider what religion SAYS in comparison to what it DOES. Religions force women to bear children until it kills them for the sole purpose of creating large armies. "Warfare of the cradle" it what teddy Roosevelt called it.

The fastest-growing pops are the religion-dominated ones.
Population growth when resources becomes plenty is natural
-and people will naturally continue to reproduce that gen or 2 beyond the point of equilibrium. These gens will grow up in poverty.
religion is bad but not the major driving force
They were designed to CAUSE war and revolution.
war attrition is negligible today
?? What is war attrition?
large families are expensive and secure societies means less religiosity and wars
Read the news. This is the BEGINNING of the next world war. Religions all teach 'give no thought for the morrow, god will provide'. History records the results.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2014
@ryggesogn: More like 5-10 years in theory, because the time horizons are like climate. A generation is ~ 25 years
A gen in religionist cultures is 15 years. They consider adolescence adulthood. In gaza, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and elsewhere, pops are set to double in 15 years.

In gaza, 60% of the pop are school age, and 60% of the pop are living on subsistence from other religion-dominated countries who know that this is the best way to foment war.

It always has been. Constantine, muhammud, and of course Moses and Joshua were all warlords. Their religions were devised to assist them in this endeavor.

The 5 pillars if Islam are configured specifically to support pops which have grown far beyond the point of stability, and to use them to overrun their enemies. And Islam is only the most refined version of the judeo-xian ethic.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2014
The article described how contraceptives (accessible for many more as relative poverty decrease) and education is strongest driving forces,


Fertility rates are correlated with individual wealth.
Fertility falls as wealth rises.
But then socialist Ehrlich disciples go 'tilt' with this data. Increasing individual wealth requires less socialism, more liberty.
Socialism is more important to them so the only solution for the socialist to increasing population must be based upon socialism, regardless of efficacy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2014
There have been massive influxes of people to Europe from countries such as Somalia and Sudan due to their large population growth coupled with conflicts that force people to become asylum seekers
Their rate of growth is the CAUSE of these conflicts. Their only choice is to either fight or flee. Even more frightening statistics;

"About 500 Syrians, Palestinians, Egyptians and Sudanese are feared to have died after their boat was rammed [by human trafficers] and sank off the Malta coast last week...

"The International Organization for Migration estimates that so far this year 2,200 people have died trying to cross the Mediterranean, compared to 700 in all of 2013. However that does not include the two incidents off Malta and Libya, which could put the grim toll close to 3,000. More than 100,000 people have been rescued since January, the U.N. refugee agency said."
Fertility falls as wealth rises
NOT in religion-based cultures. Only in the west.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2014
Those who are worried by this article should take a moment to reflect on how Africa affects their lives. I would wager it's negligible to none, as it sucks the least resources of all continents. So, if you are still worried, then do the world a favor and find the closest bridge, since you believe the world can do with one less person.


Ebola is negligible?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Sep 19, 2014
How Africa affects your life:

"The Security Council, in its first emergency meeting on a public health crisis, today declared the Ebola outbreak in West Africa a threat to peace and security, as Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that the United Nations will deploy a new emergency health mission to combat one of most horrific diseases on the planet that has shattered the lives of millions. "
http://www.un.org...ID=48746
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2014
Those who are worried by this article should take a moment to reflect on how Africa affects their lives. I would wager it's negligible to none, as it sucks the least resources of all continents. So, if you are still worried, then do the world a favor and find the closest bridge, since you believe the world can do with one less person.


Ebola is negligible?


Even ryggy can recognize ignoracle's stupidity.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2014
Those who are worried by this article should take a moment to reflect on how Africa affects their lives. I would wager it's negligible to none, as it sucks the least resources of all continents. So, if you are still worried, then do the world a favor and find the closest bridge, since you believe the world can do with one less person.


Ebola is negligible?


Even ryggy can recognize ignoracle's stupidity.

Up your shaft.
http://www.hark.c...ur-shaft

Too bad you don't recognize your own.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2014
Those who are worried by this article should take a moment to reflect on how Africa affects their lives. I would wager it's negligible to none, as it sucks the least resources of all continents. So, if you are still worried, then do the world a favor and find the closest bridge, since you believe the world can do with one less person.


Ebola is negligible?


Even ryggy can recognize ignoracle's stupidity.

Up your shaft.
http://www.hark.c...ur-shaft

Too bad you don't recognize your own.


Impossible to recognize that which is not there.

Although many people, myself included do recognize your very unique brand of stupidity which you put on public display daily.

Are the bad men in the black suits coming to plunder your wealth ryggysoggypants?

Poor you.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2014
Once again, more invective instead of discussing the topic.

But it's understandable as socialists have no defense. Zimbabwe is a classic case of how to impoverish.
"Studies show that the two things that decrease fertility rates are more access to contraceptives and education of girls and women, Raftery said."

"Fertility starts to drop at an annual income per person of $1,000-2,000 and falls until it hits the replacement level at an income per head of $4,000-10,000 a year (see chart 2). This roughly tracks the passage from poverty to middle-income status and from an agrarian society to a modern one. Thereafter fertility continues at or below replacement until, for some, it turns up again"
http://www.econom...14743589
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2014
The fertility rate is a hypothetical, almost conjectural number. It is not the same as the birth rate, which is the number of children born in a year as a share of the total population. Rather, it represents the number of children an average woman is likely to have during her childbearing years, conventionally taken to be 15-49
-and so fertility rate is irrelevant. What is relevant is the birthrate which indicates how fast pops are growing in relation to the carrying capacity of the region.

"Now imagine you are a bit richer. You may have moved to a town, or your village may have grown. Schools, markets and factories are within reach."

-So poor farmers suddenly see new income and abandon their livelihood to live in town and do - what? Work in factories? And what about all the poor farmers left behind?

This is what happened in the west during the industrial revolution. The result was a labor glut, falling wages, and the communist backlash.

Your study is full of holes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2014
At the end;

"The reason is that widening replacement-level fertility means population growth is slowing down anyway. [No, its not.] A further reduction of fertility would be possible if family planning were spread to the parts of the world which do not yet have it (notably Africa). But that would only reduce the growth in the world's numbers from 9.2 billion in 2050 to, say, 8.5 billion. To go further would probably require draconian measures, such as sterilisation or one-child policies.

"The bad news is that the girls who will give birth to the coming, larger generations have already been born. The good news is that they will want far fewer children than their mothers or grandmothers did."

-The reality is that these girls are born into societies which forbid education and family planning, and mandate that they do nothing but make and raise babies.
Rute
5 / 5 (2) Sep 19, 2014
@Rute: True, and OECD found 2013 that Europe earns _a lot_ in absolute amounts by having this immigration. Sweden more than most, I got that we earn 1-3 % more GDP out of the OECD statistics.

So yes, immigration and especially asylum immigration affects Sweden positively (on average) and their origin nations negatively (on average).

That's really surprising. Could you give a reference to the study? Is that GDP per capita you are speaking of or total GDP?

Of course it is not required that refugees contribute money to the societies they end up in because the reasons for taking in refugees are humanitarian, not financial. The 1951 Geneva treaty on the status of refugees is one of the most important international treaties ever crafted.

However, I think that the best solution for everyone is that work is done in the conflict areas to bring peace so that the horrible circumstances that people have to flee do not happen in the first place. Ditto for curing overpopulation.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2014
Once again, more invective instead of discussing the topic.

But it's understandable as socialists have no defense. Zimbabwe is a classic case of how to impoverish.
"Studies show that the two things that decrease fertility rates are more access to contraceptives and education of girls and women, Raftery said."

"Fertility starts to drop at an annual income per person of $1,000-2,000 and falls until it hits the replacement level at an income per head of $4,000-10,000 a year (see chart 2). This roughly tracks the passage from poverty to middle-income status and from an agrarian society to a modern one. Thereafter fertility continues at or below replacement until, for some, it turns up again"
http://www.econom...14743589


What do you know of discussions? All you do is provide an incessant supply of out of context or off topic quotes. And when you're not doing that you simply put your paranoia or racism on display.

Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2014
@rockwolf1000

"What do you know of discussions? All you do is provide an incessant supply of out of context or off topic quotes. And when you're not doing that you simply put your paranoia or racism on display.

You nailed it!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2014
What's off topic?

The author asserted that contraceptive and education were the golden bb's with no mention of economics.
So I raised the point, with references.
Which leads to invective from the socialists.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (1) Sep 21, 2014
Ain't gonna happen. Long before that is reached, some pandemic or war will decimate humanity. Get too many folks too close together is a proven formula for murder, famine, pestilence or whatever. Biologists at American River College, otherwise know as Rat U...for its studies on rats, did population density studies using rats. Rats are social critters, but when too many of them are in a space small enough, they suddenly turn on each other with extreme violence. We may be the same way.
vestias
not rated yet Sep 21, 2014
Overall the countries will have to cultiva their social and social economic future with the increase of the population begins to messing resources within their nations which means that we must reduce population growth
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2014
"With apologies to the frankenfood-fearers and polar bear-sentimentalizers, the biggest danger we face is the Clash of Civilizations, especially as we rub against the "bloody borders" of Islam.
What if, in the coming century, we lose that clash—and the source of our civilization? What if Muslims take over Europe? What if "Eurabia" indeed comes to pass? Would Islamic invaders demolish the Vatican, as the Taliban dynamited Afghanistan's Buddhas of Bamyan in 2001? Or would they settle merely for stripping"
"Amid all his swords and sorcery, we perhaps have neglected Tolkien's ultimate point: some things are worth fighting for—and other things are not worth fighting for; indeed, it is a tragic mistake even to try."
http://www.theame...stendom/
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2014
Looks like paid progressive government trolls (PPGT's) are here.

You can tell a PPGT by checking the Democratic National Committee website talking points (they don't have a original thought), and if they upvote anything a progressive dictator would love.

Returners
2 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2014
Those who are worried by this article should take a moment to reflect on how Africa affects their lives. I would wager it's negligible to none, as it sucks the least resources of all continents.


Naive are you?

They'll need more food than they can grow. They already import from S.America and some from N. America, I think. Five Billion people?

They'll have to cut down every tree in Brazil, Agentina, and the entire S. American continent to plant farm crops and/or raise cattle for protein.

The amount of immigration coming out of Africa and to the W. hemisphere would dramatically increase by the time their population goes up another Billion, and you can't simply assume a doubling of the number of immigrants.

If people leave now due to overcrowding and poverty, then there won't be twice as many people wanting to leave, there'll be 10 times as many or 20 times as many people wanting to leave and come to the W. Hemisphere.

Scaling immigration linearly to population is worthless.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2014
One wonders if it's actually possible to grow enough trees for the lumber needed to build the homes for that many people in the alloted time, particularly since most trees being cut down in South America won't be getting replaced with more lumber forests?

I know a lot of African and Mid-east nations still use a lot of brick (even mud brick) construction, but lumber is still a big part of any construction project.

BTW, mud bricks are a terrible construction choice, as they are a death trap in an Earthquake, which is ironic because several earthquake prone areas use a lot of mud brick construction, but that's the point. They'll need lumber, and they can't afford lumber now because it's too expensive, and mud is cheaper.

Look at Haiti and Easter Island to see what happens when a civilization's population grows to large for their energy resources, and it decimates it's own forestries. They're left alone on an island to starve, with no wood to make a boat. That's what.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2014
If the world is going to be overpopulated, it may as well be by westerners.

Maybe we're taking the wrong strategy after all. maybe we should all breed like rabbits and have 10 or 15 kids, that way our more educated kids can out compete their 8 uneducated kids.

I don't know what to say about the human conditon. I hate the very concept of eugenics and racism.

I don't want to see that crap ever again in human history, and yet it takes place every day in Asia and Africa. If it's that screwed up now, what happens when Asia gains another Billion, and Africa gains another 3 bilion people?

If they decide they want to start WW3 over food or energy needs, are we just going to end up nuking 2, 3, 6 billion people to death in order to stop things?

It's not that I don't think provison could be made, I think it can.

Problem is people are irrational anyway and do lots of evil things that are in nobody's interest
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2014
One wonders if it's actually possible to grow enough trees for the lumber needed to build the homes for that many people in the alloted time,


Who needs trees? Concrete, steel and in the tropics, bamboo grows rapidly.
Returners
1 / 5 (1) Sep 21, 2014
One wonders if it's actually possible to grow enough trees for the lumber needed to build the homes for that many people in the alloted time,


Who needs trees? Concrete, steel and in the tropics, bamboo grows rapidly.


most Americans can't afford concrete and steel homes, and you expect enough homes for 4 billion extra people to be made from concrete and steel on the poorest continent on the planet?

Um...

What are you thinking?
NOM
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2014
rygtard2 doesn't think. Normally he just spams copies of news that noone is interested in.
foolspoo
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2014
otto, i certainly appreciate your skepticism and your line of thought. but you have mistakenly attributed the origin of religion to the incredible oppressive powers that it possesses. the origins are very innocent. we have learned to recognize pattern out of survival. this recognition leads to connecting dots that aren't actually there. this has been shown through archaeology on every corner of our planet.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2014
One wonders if it's actually possible to grow enough trees for the lumber needed to build the homes for that many people in the alloted time,


Who needs trees? Concrete, steel and in the tropics, bamboo grows rapidly.


most Americans can't afford concrete and steel homes, and you expect enough homes for 4 billion extra people to be made from concrete and steel on the poorest continent on the planet?

Um...

What are you thinking?


Eco-shells:
http://www.monoli...shell-ii

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.