Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

World Population Reaches 8 Billion (cbsnews.com) 119

Posted by BeauHD from the significant-milestones dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBS News: The world's population reached 8 billion on Tuesday, growing by 1 billion in the last dozen years and reflecting the rapid population spike of the past few decades, with India projected to become the world's most populous country by next year, surpassing China. The world's population milestone of 8 billion people has long-term significance for both rich and poor countries. While it took hundreds of thousands of years for the world's population to reach 1 billion, the world grew from 7 billion to 8 billion just since 2010, a reflection of advancements in health.

As the world is expected to grow even more to over 10 billion during the next 60 years as the U.N.'s population division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) reported, population growth is slowing relative to the past, and the U.N. warns that the challenges of feeding, housing and keeping that level of people from polluting the climate will be significant. On the bright side, the increase in global life expectancy grew to almost 73 years, and is expected to reach 77 years in 2050. [...] The global population is growing at its slowest rate since 1950 with under 1% growth in 2020. The report estimates that there will be 8.5 billion people in 2030 and 9.7 billion in 2050 and then peak at 10.4 billion people during the 2080s and remain at that level until 2100.

So, how do we know that the eight billionth baby was born today? Frankly, the U.N. says, we don't. John Wilmoth, director of the U.N. Population Division of DESA, conceded -- when the report was published -- that the day is somewhat arbitrary, but important to mark the milestone. "We do not pretend that that's the actual date and we think that the uncertainty is at least plus or minus a year," he said. That's because the combination of antiquated census gathering in many countries as well as proliferation of conflicts and the COVID19 pandemic, made a door-to-door count difficult, and the numbers are based in some countries on projections.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World Population Reaches 8 Billion More

World Population Reaches 8 Billion

Comments Filter:

  • Covid (Score:4)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2022 @10:35PM (#63054701) Journal

    Covid didn’t even make a dent.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by quenda ( 644621 )

      I think you may be confusing population with life expectancy?
      Estimated global excess mortality from covid is 20-30 million so far, which lead to a spike in the death rate. But the death rate is still only half the 140 million/year births per year.

      US life expectancy has dropped, party due to covid, but that does not impact birth rates.

      • Re:Covid (Score:4, Informative)

        by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2022 @01:38AM (#63054891) Journal

        WWII finished with 20 million more people then at the beginning, in spite of almost 60 million excess deaths due to war.

        What about covid, barely a rash on humanity?

        • Covid mostly killed those already beyond their childbearing years.

        • COVID mortality was around 1% globally (https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality). We've been growing at well over 1% for the last 50 years and the growth rate has only just dipped below 1% (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW).

          So COVID really hasn't set our population back significantly.

          • The metric you quote - global average mortality - is and always has been a complete shit of a metric. More than shit, it’s actually dangerous. As is commonly the problem with averages, it doesn’t represent anyones risk accurately. People over 80 yo had mortality rates of almost 20% while those under 20 had basically negligible risk. Your metric would cause the seniors to vastly underestimate their risk and the young to vastly overestimate their risk, each with large consequences. Strokes still k
        • Is this is how Idiocracy starts? The number of deaths is much smaller than the number of disabilities.
      • But this verywell might. https://amp.theguardian.com/so... [theguardian.com]

    • Re:Covid (Score:5, Informative)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2022 @11:44PM (#63054787)
      Doesn't need to. Every single country that has modernized as either stagnant birth rates or if below sustainability, and every country on earth that isn't modernizing is busy doing so. As long as we don't collapse our civilization we'll be fine

      • As long as we don't collapse our civilization we'll be fine

        Well, thank YOU for jinxing it!

      • There's a burning sun And it sets in the western world But it rises in the east And pretty soon It's gonna burn your temples down https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        This. The increasing population is mostly because people are living longer, so more people are alive at the same time.

        Bangladesh is a great example. It went form a peak of about 7.5 births per woman to 2.0 now. Bangladesh is now below replacement rate (2.1 because some people die young) and it's due to improved education and empowerment of women to control their fertility.

        Bangladesh's population continues to grow, because healthcare is also improving which means people live longer. It will level off and the

      • Doesn't need to. Every single country that has modernized as either stagnant birth rates or if below sustainability, and every country on earth that isn't modernizing is busy doing so. As long as we don't collapse our civilization we'll be fine

        I remember when first coming to Slashdot, we were told how the Birth rate was going to plummet with great authority and surety. Since that was well more than a decade ago, we're heading towards 2 billion more people. 2000 was a little over 6 billion.

        I know this is now Clownworld, where strange things and beliefs happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath that we aren't going to collapse.

        I suspect that at least the collapse will take care of the population issue.

        • It is like distance, velocity and acceleration.

          population is like distance
          the rate of population increase is like velocity
          the rate of change in the rate of population increase is like acceleration

          If you throw a ball up into the air, initially the distance grows, the velocity is positive but decreasing and the acceleration is negative. Eventually the acceleration causes the velocity to reach zero and go negative resulting in peak distance. Then the distance decreases to zero and the ball hits the ground.

          With

      • When we start collapsing the economy will switch from consumer driven to old industrial economy. We are actually seeing traces of that - goods and services are shrinking in some areas.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )
      It made a dent. For comparison, the number of people killed by Covid was about one third of the number of people who were killed in WW1.
    • You can blame it on the lockdowns. All chinese and indians did was work, fuck, and eat. They won't stop fucking.

  • Covid? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by blackomegax ( 807080 )
    What happened to all that noise that covid was a globalist depopulation virus?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by haunebu ( 16326 )

      It is once you hit 75-80. Can't have you leeching off the system well into your retirement years, now can we?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lsllll ( 830002 )

        That's an interesting way of looking at things. In Dan Brown's book Inferno, a geneticist created a virus whose purpose was to make 1/3 of the people who contracted it impotent in order to control the world population from ballooning beyond our capacity. In the U.S. at least, according to various estimates, 20-50% of the healthcare bill goes toward the last 6 months of patients' lives. (I don't know why this is such a hard figure to come to. It should be readily available) What if someone actually was t

        • In the U.S. at least, according to various estimates, 20-50% of the healthcare bill goes toward the last 6 months of patients' lives.

          That is pretty various, rather large spread there. Probably quite a few in the low range and a handful in the top then.

        • Re:Covid? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2022 @11:25PM (#63054765) Journal
          Impotency for 33% will hardly make a dent.

          Infertility for 33% of women, ... then you are talking.

          But, there already something that reduces fertility of women. Education and financial independence.

        • 50% of North American men already are. I'm not sure another 33% would make much difference. There are sexual selection factors that are relevant here too. You can be as virile as possible, but if you are the wrong color you won't get an opportunity to reproduce anyway.
        • For the over 70 the fatality rate is 90% anyway. To reduce the population, you need to kill the under 30, the way Russia is doing with its otherwise useless wars.
    • The mortality rate was in the low percents not 30% like some feared

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Without counter-measures, it would have gone up to something like 5%. In areas where people panicked it could have gone significantly higher. The low mortality is a success for masks, distancing and vaccinations, nothing else. Fortunately the "anti-everything" morons were mostly loud and not very effective at sabotaging the measures.

        • I have cancer and got Covid at least twice already. The latest version is just a sniffle, even for me. Otherwise healthy people have nothing to fear from Covid19. It is time to get out of the basement snd enjoy life.

  • 1955 - 3.5 billion (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SimonInOz ( 579741 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2022 @10:55PM (#63054725)

    I was born in 1955. There were 3.5 billion people.
    Now we have 8 billion.
    I think we have a problem. Just like smart folk have been saying since, oh, a long time.
    Come back Thomas Malthus, all is forgiven.

    The only country with the, um, balls, to tackle the problem has been China. And it's not gone especially well there.
    It appears population growth slows, and even reverses, as countries become rich. The currently population boom is in Africa, eg Nigeria (HDI 0.51).
    There is a small correlation between low HDI and high population growth, and the reverse, but it's weak. Religion and economic factors probably have significant effect.

    Trying to move to Mars is not going to help, despite Elon's best efforts (though we must commend him for attempting to make a "backup" civilisation).

    So what to do?
    * We need to solve the carbon problem before large areas with large populations go underwater or become untenable (eg Bangladesh), or we are going to get even more chaos
    * we need to work on empowering women in poor countries to control their own birth rates (education!)
    * we need effective and cheap contraception to be readily available (for men and women)
    * we need better pre and post natal care to increase the survival rate and health of children (and thus reduce the need for "spares")
    * we need better old age care to reduce the desire for "children to look after us in our old age"
    * we need to get fast breeding religions (cough, Catholicism) to stop it, just stop it (education)
    * the massive numbers of single parents (mainly women) is contributing to poor breeding practices (arguable)

    So which of these do you want to contribute to?

    (Disclaimer - I have 2 children. On the other hand, my [only] sister has none)

    • Contribute? are you joking? none of those things are worthy of contribution and most can be done with zero money.

      No money from me for fake green or misguided social ideals.

    • Overpopulation is universally self-correcting.

    • Or you can play an expansionist game like Elon Musk

      His stated goal is to make Humans a multi-planetary species [weforum.org] and get us past the Great Filter [wikipedia.org] or whatever you would call the seemingly inevitable decline of any intelligent species (since they haven't dropped by to say high, or even been observable in any way [wikipedia.org])...

      In Elon's game, any decline in population growth is a sign of not being able to continue with expansion into the solar system, and the current rate needs to continue in order to convince Humans that

    • We don't (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2022 @11:46PM (#63054789)
      Modernized countries are birth rates stagnant or drop below sustainability and every country on earth is either modernized or becoming modernized. As long as we don't regress into theocratic dictatorships we'll be fine

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by awwshit ( 6214476 )

        It has a lot to do with access to and acceptance of birth control. And with women's rights over their own bodies.

      • We keep claiming this with zero reference to reality. 7B put global warming in place 8B has cemented it At current trend we will cap at around 11B. Every single one of them bringing their own demands on resources, energy and space. Each of them contributing to the destruction and poiosning of the only environment capable of supporting human life. 8B is too much. 6B is too much. Claiming it's all fine whilst the house is burning is the sort of cognitive dissonance that got us here. Kudos on actively pur

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by louzer ( 1006689 )
      Everybody blames Malthus for being wrong. Few realize Malthus was born 1766, that is 9 years before coal mining started. Malthus lived in a low energy consumption world which couldn't feed people sashimi flown via airplanes from Japan. Energy used to be expensive when the only source of artificial light at night was burning whale blubber. Obviously it is impossible to feed 8 billion people when there is no cheap energy. As we return to a expensive energy world, Malthus will become more right.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tom ( 822 )

      The only country with the, um, balls, to tackle the problem has been China. And it's not gone especially well there.

      How so? Yes, it had some side-effects (male babies preference) but it did, to quote Brittanica "the Chinese government estimated that some 400 million births had been prevented."

      The exact number has been contested, but independent scholars who studied the question agree in general: "Goodkind contends that birth-planning policies implemented after 1970 avoided adding between 360 million and 520 million people to China's population."

    • I was born in 1955. There were 3.5 billion people.

      Not here on Earth; I assume you mean where you're at. It still sounds too high but L. Frank isn't here to confirm so I'll just have to take your word for it.

    • Catholicism

      But more Catholic babies means more Catholics. You don't see (many) already born people becoming Catholics, do you? No, Catholics need high birth rates to replace the dying Catholics at double the rate and become a bigger cult than Islam.

      Fuck a Catholic today! And join (or don't) the fastest growing cult in the world!

      If done correctly, ever fuck produces (at least) another Catholic. Fuck your way to global domination!

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Yep. Essentially religion is trying to kill human civilization and then the human race. Probably unintentionally, but who knows with the mentally deranged. Outcome unclear at this time.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by John Smith 2294 ( 5807072 )
          Well, all three Abrahamic faiths are indeed death cults, who eagerly anticipate the end of humanity, and their god will punish all the unbelievers and they will all go to heaven right? So, yes, religion really is trying to kill human civilsation. These cults must be put down permanently if humanity is to have a future at all.

      • Fuck a Catholic today! And join (or don't) the fastest growing cult in the world!

        Don' worry the Catholic church have got that covered. Why do you think their priests aren't allowed to get married? They're the world's oldest sperm bank.

      • This is anecdotal...the fertility rate among Catholics in all Western countries is well below replacement rate, and almost identical to the overall rates for those countries. There are some peaks on smaller religious sects, mostly those on the more fundamental side, Orthodox Jews, yes some very conservative catholics, but those aren't even a rounding error.

        The world should be doing all it can to implement widespread birth control in these fast growing countries. Population growth is the real #1 issue ar

        • High birth rates are a rational response to the inability to support high birth rates. Gotta have lotsa babies in the hopes that one or two will survive.

          Not all economic growth is a ponzi scheme. But much is. You can have economic growth based simply on increased productivity, but that is not the trend e.g. in the US.

    • The only country with the, um, balls, to tackle the problem has been China. And it's not gone especially well there.

      They didn't try in good faith. We know that increasing education decreases birth rates, but they depend on keeping people ignorant. Now contrast and compare the Republican attempts to prohibit teachers from even mentioning slavery... they're the same picture.

    • I was born in 1955. There were 3.5 billion people.
      Now we have 8 billion.
      I think we have a problem. Just like smart folk have been saying since, oh, a long time.
      Come back Thomas Malthus, all is forgiven.

      When Malthus was alive, human population was ~1 billion. With the additional 7 billion we have abundant and better quality food, better medical care, longer life expectancy, better education, less poverty, fewer wars, and fewer people killed in those wars.

      "Smart folks" don't buy into the Malthusian theory because that prediction was based on an extremely limited model extrapolated from a narrow window of data in 18th century England and has been empirically invalidated a hundred different ways since.

      • With the additional 7 billion we have abundant and better quality food, better medical care, longer life expectancy, better education, less poverty, fewer wars, and fewer people killed in those wars.

        ...and everything is awesome and we aren't, in point of fact, celebrating a ridiculous volume of human biomass for no good reason whilst turning a blind eye to the destruction this idiocy has wrought....

    • Russia is working hard at reducing its population - the traditional Russian way - cannon fodder.

    • Africa is expected to overtake China in population in the not too distant future.
      However, in general terms, the entire continent is unable to maintain even what the West would consider a substandard quality of life. Due to this, we see wave after wave of migrants illegally coming to Europe in order to seek a better life.
      An increase in population by at least 50%, as is being predicted will have the effect of drowning Europe in a wave of being and in the process throwing Europe into such a state of poverty th

    • According to search engines, the surface area of land on earth is 57.51 million square miles. Divide that by 8 billion people, and each person would be allotted 0.00718875 square miles, or roughly 4.6 acres, or 200,000 square feet.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kackle ( 910159 )
      I wonder how this gets perverted when rich countries prop up poor countries with food charity. This would give them abundance to create more population, but not wealth.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      The only country with the, um, balls, to tackle the problem has been China. And it's not gone especially well there.

      Unsurprisingly, because they cheated.

      China's targets were based on carbon intensity - basically carbon emissions over GDP. In 2009 they were well on the way to hit 45% reduction by 2020, which they hit in 2017. But that was less from reducing carbon emissions by switching from coal to cleaner sources, and more by their economy being less carbon intensive because it was switching from industria

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by vinlud ( 230623 )

      I think you left out a major one, we need to accept death as a part of life. People are getting older and older rapidly, and if diseases like cancer become chronical instead of life-ending, we will be in for a ride. Not even China will dare touching that subject

    • Catholicism? Pakistan's population has increased 590 % since 1945. Bangladesh has more than 1100 (!!!) people/km2 (US is 35, Europe is 70), China 150, India 400). Ooh, India + 1 billion since 1945. Asians should stop fucking so much.

  • This will cut world population by 1/3rd and will save us.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Chas ( 5144 )

      And YES people, I'm taking the piss out...

    • Think of the scam call reduction!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      better to eliminate 330 million Americans then 1.4 billion Indians.
      The Americans are much more polluting and resource intensive.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Chas ( 5144 )

        If you're going SOLELY by CO2 emissions? It's a close thing.
        Now look at things like particulate emissions.

        Thanks for playing.

        • This depends on how you count pollution contribution, the USA consumes more than it produces. If you count all things manufactured for consumption in the US it wont be close on a per capita basis in anyway.

          That impoverished household that burns wood every day to cook has nowhere near the level of waste output of the average US home, factoring in the factories in China movement of goods etc to provide that lifestyle.

          The post above suggests a ratio of pollution level per American been greater than 4:1 c

  • 8 Billion? (Score:5, Funny)

    by CaptainLugnuts ( 2594663 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2022 @11:48PM (#63054795)
    How many of them are fake Twitter accounts?
    • Possibly at least half, since people in much of the undeveloped world cannot count, so one needs to take the 8 bil number with a big 300 ton mining truck of salt. Look at the US election - even in a developed country, people cannot count.

  • Don't worry, New World Order has a plan

  • Lets have a big big party!

  • Are you sure? (Score:5, Funny)

    by CaptainLugnuts ( 2594663 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2022 @12:58AM (#63054861)
    Maybe it's only 4 billion and BeauHD duped it.

  • We are fucked (Score:1, Interesting)

    by tweissin ( 1705886 )
    I would hate to see what the state of the planet looks like 100 years from now. Population, water supply, drought. We are a virus, raping the planet. Agent Smith from The Matrix was right about that part.

  • Soylent Green (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    be very popular very soon now.

  • The very last ad will be for the male replacement that actually works. Then... silence.

  • ... 10.4 billion people during the 2080s ...

    A national news article talked about the birth-rate flat-lining in 2050, and the problems that will cause: Governments and corporations depend on there being more consumers next year (See GDP growth). When that stops, even more jobs will disappear: No need for new schools, hospitals and houses means the entire supply chain will shrink, reducing jobs in construction, maintenance, operation (staffing) and support services.

  • I remember when the song '700 millions de Chinois, et moi, et moi, et moi' was in the French charts.

  • .... I don't have any kids. And it's AWESOME!
  • By John Brunner
  • Overpopulation is the biggest problem we have on Earth, and the world is running out of food... yet people just don't care. 100 years ago, the entire world population was just under 1.7 billion humans. Today, China alone has nearly that many. The planet now holds 8 billion humans, and it's said might exponentially increase to 15 billion by 2030. 1) India has no concept of how much they're contributing to the problem. They're about to overtake China. 2) China has now lifted the law that bans couples havin

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close