World Population Decline Question

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: World Population Decline Question

#21  Postby Hermit » Jun 13, 2020 2:38 am

newolder wrote:It looks like 2015 to me and matches exactly with the transition.

There is a transition of sorts in 2015, but not exactly of the sort you are apparently seeing.

The annual population growth rate dropped from 2.1% in 1963 to 1.2% 52 years later (2015).
The projected annual population growth rate is estimated (UN medium scenario) to drop from 1.2% in 2015 to 0.1% 85 years later (2100).

I'm sure you can work out from here which gradient is the steeper one.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4332
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: World Population Decline Question

#22  Postby newolder » Jun 13, 2020 6:45 am

Hermit wrote:
newolder wrote:It looks like 2015 to me and matches exactly with the transition.

There is a transition of sorts in 2015, but not exactly of the sort you are apparently seeing.

The annual population growth rate dropped from 2.1% in 1963 to 1.2% 52 years later (2015).
The projected annual population growth rate is estimated (UN medium scenario) to drop from 1.2% in 2015 to 0.1% 85 years later (2100).

I'm sure you can work out from here which gradient is the steeper one.

The transition plotted on the graph is clear. It's about a 0.05% drop over a time no thicker than the drawn line and I'm sure you can work out the steepness of that gradient. Also, 2015 as marked on the abscissa is nowhere near the mid point between 2010 and 2020. Basically, it's a shit graph.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7310
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: World Population Decline Question

#23  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 13, 2020 6:55 am

newolder wrote:
Hermit wrote:
newolder wrote:It looks like 2015 to me and matches exactly with the transition.

There is a transition of sorts in 2015, but not exactly of the sort you are apparently seeing.

The annual population growth rate dropped from 2.1% in 1963 to 1.2% 52 years later (2015).
The projected annual population growth rate is estimated (UN medium scenario) to drop from 1.2% in 2015 to 0.1% 85 years later (2100).

I'm sure you can work out from here which gradient is the steeper one.

The transition plotted on the graph is clear. It's about a 0.05% drop over a time no thicker than the drawn line and I'm sure you can work out the steepness of that gradient. Also, 2015 as marked on the abscissa is nowhere near the mid point between 2010 and 2020. Basically, it's a shit graph.


I think you're going off the deep end a bit, here, Albert. The ticks/divisions on the abscissa are 20 years. The forecast is from 2015 and it appears to project some sort of simple monotonically-decreasing rate into the future. There is no steep break into the projection except for a discontinuity between (recent) history and modeling of the future. I'd agree with you that the model is not very sophisticated -- all it intends to show is how the world population advances under such a model. Keep your eye on the difference between the red curve, which is a rate, and the blue one, which looks like some sort of integration.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29545
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: World Population Decline Question

#24  Postby newolder » Jun 13, 2020 7:13 am

I think you are correct Cito in that I'm going off some kind of deep end here. However, the correction that two decades is the tick mark on the abscissa does not make it a better graph (it actually makes it worse, in my view). I am looking at the red (rate) line and see an almost instantaneous 0.05% (left ordinate) drop starting in 2015. Perhaps my eyes are not working and I'm ranting into the void - it's of no real consequence either way.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7310
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: World Population Decline Question

#25  Postby Hermit » Jun 13, 2020 12:00 pm

Macdoc wrote:UN projections are way off.

snip
But they always compensate with it when they look at the developing world. Well, John and I looked at the developing world and looked at the statistics and travelled to the developing world to look at what was going on — and [they're] not having as many babies as we think they are.

So, for example, India now — which everybody assumes has a huge fertility advantage over other countries — well, the Lancet just came up with a major demographic study that was published in November that showed it's [the birth rate] down to 2.1, just at replacement level.

China, as we already know, is at 1.5, but there's other demographers that say it's probably even lower than that.

So that's 40 per cent of the world's population. If kids aren't being born at the rate you need them to be to replace the population in those two places, it's not going to get to 11.2 billion. It's impossible for it to happen.


https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-4 ... -1.5009923

OMG, OMG, someone has discovered something nobody else is aware of: urbanisation and the rise of female education are reducing birth rates! Silly people. No wonder that "everybody assumes [India] has a huge fertility advantage over other countries". Kind of explains why I cannot find a single chart tracking its fertility rate from 5.906 in 1960 to 2.222 in 2018.

Quick, publish a book. It may be filled with junk, but there's money in it if you give it a sufficiently sensationalist title. One that implies planet earth without any humans in the near future. And don't forget to include the word "shock".
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4332
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: World Population Decline Question

#26  Postby aufbahrung » Jun 13, 2020 12:15 pm

It might be so today, with smartphones and over cognitive crutches doing away with the thinking brain, could be the birthrate of the educated and urbane will start rising again. Society is dumber by the day already.
ship struck the rocks yesterday, and the worst is yet to be....
User avatar
aufbahrung
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Your Real Name
Posts: 1411

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: World Population Decline Question

#27  Postby Alan B » Jun 13, 2020 1:17 pm

India, huh? Population is a is a function of birth and death rates (obvious, or what?).
So here is a link for India's death rates: macrotrends to complete the picture.

World population is measured in thouands of millions. A variation in any particular country's population in tens of millions is peanuts in comparison. As long as the total births exceeds total deaths (regardless of any particular country's statistics), the world population will continue to increase.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9999
Age: 84
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: World Population Decline Question

#28  Postby blindfaith » Jun 13, 2020 2:48 pm

aufbahrung wrote:It might be so today, with smartphones and over cognitive crutches doing away with the thinking brain, could be the birthrate of the educated and urbane will start rising again. Society is dumber by the day already.


"Greatness is in the midst of visible self-knowledge" _
The best explanation for the absence of convincing reasons for god's existence is god's nonexistence

john shook
User avatar
blindfaith
 
Name: darren
Posts: 468
Age: 51
Male

Country: uk
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: World Population Decline Question

#29  Postby tuco » Jun 13, 2020 5:56 pm

Macdoc wrote:UN projections are way off.

snip
But they always compensate with it when they look at the developing world. Well, John and I looked at the developing world and looked at the statistics and travelled to the developing world to look at what was going on — and [they're] not having as many babies as we think they are.

So, for example, India now — which everybody assumes has a huge fertility advantage over other countries — well, the Lancet just came up with a major demographic study that was published in November that showed it's [the birth rate] down to 2.1, just at replacement level.

China, as we already know, is at 1.5, but there's other demographers that say it's probably even lower than that.

So that's 40 per cent of the world's population. If kids aren't being born at the rate you need them to be to replace the population in those two places, it's not going to get to 11.2 billion. It's impossible for it to happen.


https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-4 ... -1.5009923


Are you kidding me? This is the third time, I know of, you posted this link and this is the third time I am noting that one author is a political commentator and the other one is also a journalist. They have no expertise, all they have is an argument, a thesis, and a will to sell a book. So can you please stop posting it as some kind of proof or not?

Way off, says who? From the article:

He says rapid urbanization and the rise of female education are reducing birth rates around the world — and that could have dramatic consequences for humanity and the planet.

Could have could have ... ok or not ok?
tuco
 
Posts: 15544

Print view this post

Re: World Population Decline Question

#30  Postby Macdoc » Jun 13, 2020 6:57 pm

the Lancet just came up with a major demographic study that was published in November that showed it's [the birth rate] down to 2.1, just at replacement level.


Use your common sense .....India is just at replacement ..
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/gov ... ting-69013
..and China well below .
....Japan and dozens of others including Canada are nowhere near replacement and require extensive immigration.

Reporting science does not require the author to be a scientist in the field being examined....

In assessing the state of the planet, it is important to note that during late 2003 or early 2004, the human population will cross a historic, but so far largely unnoticed, threshold. Most of the world's population either already do, or soon will, live in countries or regions in which fertility is below the level of long-run replacement [1].



https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0224985

It's not getting to circa 11 billion. Read the papers and the book.

I'm hardly alone and these guys are experts in the field or have a lot at stake on getting it correct ( Deutsche Bank )

Jørgen Randers, a Norwegian academic who decades ago warned of a potential global catastrophe caused by overpopulation, has changed his mind. “The world population will never reach nine billion people,” he now believes. “It will peak at 8 billion in 2040, and then decline.”

Similarly, Prof Wolfgang Lutz and his fellow demographers at Vienna’s International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis predict the human population will stabilise by mid-century and then start to go down.

A Deutsche Bank report has the planetary population peaking at 8.7 billion in 2055 and then declining to 8 billion by century’s end.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... es-decline

Even back in 2004 the UN projections were suspect and questioned

A review of past UN population projections shows that there have been systematic biases in their assumptions about future trends in important factors. The most significant errors have been the consistent over-estimation of fertility rates in both developed and developing countries. The speed of the decline in fertility in the last one-third of the 20th Century consistently surprised the UN.

https://www.cbe.anu.edu.au/researchpape ... /wp438.pdf

Perhaps you don't think a mere 2-3 billion error in projection vs reality is significant. :roll:

The evolution of fertility: several recent surprises

However, the observed fertility trends were different and the scenarios had to be revised to take into account several surprises.

First surprise: fertility has remained well below 2.1 children in many industrialized countries. And many Southern countries have joined the countries of the North in low fertility. Consequently, the United Nations has abandoned its hypothesis of convergence to 2.1 children to adopt a convergence level well below: 1.85 children (Figure 3 below). The population curves then has a bell-like shape almost everywhere: after reaching a maximum, the population decreases (Figure 2 above).


Image

The second surprise came 30 years ago, when surveys revealed the unexpectedly rapid pace of fertility decline in many countries of Asia and Latin America. In response to this new trend, the United Nations made substantial downward revisions to their demographic projections for these continents.

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-humans-to ... tions.html

If you have a supported counter argument that human population will get to 11+ billion and we're moving to a Stand on Zanizabar catastrophe - by all means trot it out :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: World Population Decline Question

#31  Postby tuco » Jun 13, 2020 9:02 pm

Zanzibar catastrophe? lol Anyway, I don't need to support anything as I don't make claims here. I am just being skeptical to your strong claims you support with pop-science book despite being repeatedly told its not enough for strong claims like .. "impossible to happen" or "way off". Then again, thinking about this you probably don't understand what I am telling you so you keep posting it.

---
edit: Let me just add because ... We've been over the population predictions in some let's say detail. Those concerned hopefully remember. If we learned anything is that it's hard, perhaps impossible, to make reliable predictions.

Now, why do we care about such predictions? Because we need some estimates to base our current and near-future plans and goals on. We don't care about the numbers because they are sexy or something. There is context, there is let's say meaning to trying to understand and estimate how many consumers there will be in the future. The context is the planet, environment.

Isn't it let's say wiser to take the worst-case scenario for population growth into consideration when making today's plans for the future? To me, relying on one let's opinion, despite being educated one, in a situation when there are contradictory estimates, also educated ones, seems careless.

I don't really care who has "the truth" when it comes to population predictions. When we start talking about human relations and policies with regards to the environment and consumption of resources, I have to insist on the worst-case scenario, however. Its like ... no, technology will not solve everything, well, at least we do not know it will.
tuco
 
Posts: 15544

Print view this post

Re: World Population Decline Question

#32  Postby Hermit » Jun 14, 2020 4:33 am

People should stop speaking about the UN population prediction. Take an actual look at the UN's publications. You'll find no such thing. You will find a range of models concerning possible future population growth. They are contained in a spreadsheet named WPP2019_POP_F01_1_TOTAL_POPULATION_BOTH_SEXES.xlsx. You can download it by clicking on the first link on the list of available files.*

The scenarios are detailed in separate tabs. The high variant has the global population reaching 15.6 billion in 2100, and the medium variant brings it to 10.9, at which point it has just about plateaued. The low variant has the population peaking at 8.9 billion in 2054. By 2100 it is projected to have declined to 7.3 billion. A fourth scenario, I suspect included for the LOLs, is the constant fertility model. It has the population reaching 21.6 billion at the end of 2100.

UN's chief of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs - Population, John Wilmoth, regards the medium variant as the most likely outcome. People who say it is wrong, point to urbanisation and education as the main reasons why they regard it as wrong. As if the UN does not track those trends. In the end all modellers use much the same method for constructing their models: They extrapolate from what happened in the past to the future.

Their disagreement is over the future change of rates, in other words they disagree about stuff that has not happened. In that regard I trust projections made by an organisation with huge research capability and headed by a professor of demography with 50 peer-reviewed publications to his name somewhat more readily than a sole peer-reviewed article in Plos One by two individuals that has been cited by nobody, or a sensationalist book by someone who has talked with demographers and visited some underdeveloped countries.

I think it is important that all projections are just educated guesses, and any serious model is constantly revised. The UN's 2019 edition is its 26th version. What this means is that categorical assertions like "the UN's prediction is (sic) wrong" and "global population will not exceed 8.x billion" are preposterous, especially when they come from two-bit outfits, and even more so when they come from us bystanders with no professional credentials in that field at all.

*If you don't have any software that will open it, download OpenOffice. It will, it's available in MS-Windows, OSW X and Linux versions, and it's freeware.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4332
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: World Population Decline Question

#33  Postby Alan B » Jun 14, 2020 10:21 am

Worldometers population by Country

If you 'average' the Fertility Rate column it comes to 2.69 - well above replacement level...

Naturally, with countries with a very low population, a high fertility rate will have less effect.

The first 14 countries with a population of 100 million or more, only seven have a fertility rate of 2.1 or less.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9999
Age: 84
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: World Population Decline Question

#34  Postby Hermit » Jun 14, 2020 10:46 am

Alan B wrote:Worldometers population by Country

If you 'average' the Fertility Rate column it comes to 2.69 - well above replacement level...

Well, yes, but replacement levels are neither uniform nor constant. They are always lower than fertility rates, though. That said, anyone suggesting the UN modellers of population studies are not aware, and/or don't take account of that is either a fucking idiot or mendaciously spreading fake news.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4332
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: World Population Decline Question

#35  Postby Macdoc » Jun 14, 2020 11:47 am

:roll: Neither you nor I are qualified to peer review the UN approach but others in the field are and they DO question the UN methodology. There is an easily discernible bias towards higher population numbers in projections from the UN. Evidenced from the UN shifting its own numbers.

Those questions from qualified demographers about the UN projections are neither mendacious nor fake news, but you are welcome to your conspiracy theories. :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: World Population Decline Question

#36  Postby Alan B » Jun 14, 2020 11:48 am

I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9999
Age: 84
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: World Population Decline Question

#37  Postby Hermit » Jun 14, 2020 12:43 pm

Macdoc wrote::roll: Neither you nor I are qualified to peer review the UN approach but others in the field are and they DO question the UN methodology. There is an easily discernible bias towards higher population numbers in projections from the UN. Evidenced from the UN shifting its own numbers.

The frequent revisions are easily discernible evidence that the UN keeps improving its prognostications based on new empirical evidence as it becomes available.

Macdoc wrote:Those questions from qualified demographers about the UN projections are neither mendacious nor fake news, but you are welcome to your conspiracy theories. :coffee:

The book you heap your fulsome praise on was not written by qualified demographers. At this juncture it is fitting to just repost something I have written about the publication and its authors before:
You can bypass the WSJ's paywall and read the full review by typing "The drivers of global fertility decline are here to stay." (including the quote marks) into google and clicking on the relevant link. Note that the writer of this glowing praise is an Adjunct Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a Research Fellow at the Institute for Family Studies.

As for the book, based on the WSJ's review I have commented on it here. At that time I was under the mistaken impression that Macdoc's comment about it was dripping with sarcasm that was as subtle as it was intense.

Since then I found a few other things out about the book's authors. To begin with, neither of them are demographers or have any other professional background regarding the topic they wrote about. Bricker is the current Global CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs. While completing his B.A. studies, he began to specialize in research, polling, and analysis methods. Ibbitson is a playwright/novelist turned journalist. Empty Planet is not the first book they collaborated on in order to predict stuff. They also got together writing a book titled The Big Shift: The Seismic Change in Canadian Politics, Business, and Culture and What It Means for Our Future. Published in 2013, it prophesied that Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada would win the 2015 election and open up a new political era as a dominant party. Image The Wikipedia quotes from that book:
We believe that fortune favours the Harper government in the next election. But we don’t believe this is about the next election. We believe it is about the next decade, the next generation, and beyond. We believe that the Conservative Party will be to the twenty-first century what the Liberal party was to the twentieth: the perpetually dominant party, the natural governing party.

One has to wonder about the writers' competence to make longer term prognostications when they got the one concerning the near future so comprehensively wrong.

We have a couple of Harper supporters telling us not to worry about a population explosion for the same reason global climate warming deniers tell us that global warming is not happening. That is mendacious in my book. I told you why they are wrong in post #32, which you unsurprisingly totally ignored, just as you equally unsurprisingly totally ignored the post I just reiterated.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4332
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest