Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Population: Public Enemy No. 1  (Read 105323 times)

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3146
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #450 on: October 27, 2018, 05:47:31 PM »
You are assuming that everyone is able to pay the growing rate for rice which is simply not the case. There are 1 billion people who are malnourished and they depend on outside market mechanisms to eat what they are able. A farmers decision to reduce the planting of any crop has nothing to do with the 30 odd million who starved to death in 2017.

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1090
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #451 on: October 27, 2018, 05:54:02 PM »
You are assuming that everyone is able to pay the growing rate for rice which is simply not the case. There are 1 billion people who are malnourished and they depend on outside market mechanisms to eat what they are able.

Well, there will imminently be significant-scale famine in Yemen, but famines across the world are less of a problem generally than they used to be.

On average, more of the world is able to afford basic necessities than before.
While poor nutrition is definitely a problem, the number one nutrition-related problem across the developing world is obesity.

No, rice hasn't become cheap because fewer people are able to afford to eat.  Quite a lot more people are able to afford to eat too many calories.

Edit:  Figure attached. global rates of extreme poverty have plummeted, not increased.  Almost nobody is failing to eat rice due to inadequate income:
« Last Edit: October 27, 2018, 06:14:59 PM by SteveMDFP »

Paddy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 432
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #452 on: October 27, 2018, 09:04:36 PM »
the 30 odd million who starved to death in 2017.

Where on earth did you get that statistic from?

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1090
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #453 on: October 27, 2018, 10:15:38 PM »
the 30 odd million who starved to death in 2017.

Where on earth did you get that statistic from?

I thought I'd dig into that figure.  It may come from this story:
20 million starving to death: inside the worst famine since World War
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/1/15653970/south-sudan-hunger-crisis-famine

20 million at risk of starving.  I don't know how many actually perished.  But to bring this  back to the discussion, this famine really had nothing to do with "peak rice."  It, like Yemen today, is a result of civil war and disrupted systems for food distribution.

Rice is pretty cheap, and cheaper than it used to be.  Global incomes of the poor are up.  If we've reached "peak rice," it reflects soft demand, not resource constraints on production.

This doesn't mean the world won't face "peak food" in the near future, related to resource constraints.  It's just that that's not remotely the situation today.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13070
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 84
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #454 on: November 04, 2018, 01:51:51 PM »
Not sure if this is the best thread for this article, but it’s related:

'The most intellectual creature to ever walk Earth is destroying its only home'
By Jane Goodall
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/03/the-most-intellectual-creature-to-ever-walk-earth-is-destroying-its-only-home
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3862
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #455 on: November 09, 2018, 10:02:24 PM »
Fertility rates worldwide dropping: worldwide average total fertility rate drops from 4.7 to 2.4 from 1950-2017, population growth rate now 1.1, decreasing from 2.0

[TFR is total fertility rate, ASFR is age specific fertility rate]

"From 1950 to 2017, TFRs decreased by 49·4% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 46·4–52·0). The TFR decreased  from 4·7 livebirths (4·5–4·9) to 2·4 livebirths (2·2–2·5), and the ASFR of mothers aged 10–19 years decreased from  37 livebirths (34–40) to 22 livebirths (19–24) per 1000 women. Despite reductions in the TFR, the global population  has  been  increasing  by  an  average  of  83·8  million  people  per  year  since  1985.  The  global  population  increased  by 197·2% (193·3–200·8) since 1950, from 2·6 billion (2·5–2·6) to 7·6 billion (7·4–7·9) people in 2017; much of this increase was in the proportion of the global population in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The global annual rate  of  population  growth  increased  between  1950  and  1964,  when  it  peaked  at  2·0%;  this  rate  then  remained  nearly constant until 1970 and then decreased to 1·1% in 2017."

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(18)32278-5.pdf

open access. read all about it.

coverage at

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46118103

sidd

Paddy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 432
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #456 on: November 10, 2018, 02:22:58 AM »
The other studies in that series are also worth a glance, visavis the state of the world: https://www.thelancet.com/gbd?utm_campaign=gbd17

One thing that the editorial flags up is that progress in reducing adult mortality rates may be stalling just at the moment (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32858-7/fulltext "In 2017, global adult mortality rates decreases plateaued, and, in some cases, mortality rates increased.").  This is obviously bad news given the general association between death and suffering, but may also suggest a slower rate of global population growth than had been forecast, if life expectancy rise worldwide is indeed slowing down.

dnem

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #457 on: November 10, 2018, 04:30:22 PM »
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46118103
"The report, part of the Global Burden of Diseases analysis, says affected countries will need to consider ... introducing policies to encourage women to have more children, which often fail. Report author Prof Murray argues: "On current trends there will be very few children and lots of people over the age of 65 and that's very difficult to sustain global society."

OMFG!!! OK demographers, answer these questions: "Is INFINITY the ideal population for humans on planet Earth? (I didn't think so). If not, when is the best time for our species to plateau its global population and take on the challenges of the "demographic transition", including an aging population for a generation or two?" Oh, right, sometime in the future. That makes sense.

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3146
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #458 on: November 10, 2018, 05:55:09 PM »
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46118103
"The report, part of the Global Burden of Diseases analysis, says affected countries will need to consider ... introducing policies to encourage women to have more children, which often fail. Report author Prof Murray argues: "On current trends there will be very few children and lots of people over the age of 65 and that's very difficult to sustain global society."

OMFG!!! OK demographers, answer these questions: "Is INFINITY the ideal population for humans on planet Earth? (I didn't think so). If not, when is the best time for our species to plateau its global population and take on the challenges of the "demographic transition", including an aging population for a generation or two?" Oh, right, sometime in the future. That makes sense.

Growth systems require and/or cause growth of every major input or output of the system. Humans as both units of production and consumption are arguably the most important component of this growth system which we have used to organize global society. If we were to somehow halt the growth of the world's population or perhaps establish a trend of a subtle decrease, we would bring capitalism to its knees.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2018, 06:33:10 PM by Shared Humanity »

dnem

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #459 on: November 10, 2018, 06:19:19 PM »
Exactly, SH, exactly.  There is no plan to tame the beast because the beast can't be tamed.  The economic order is far less stable than the ecological order.

Paddy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 432
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #460 on: December 03, 2018, 11:35:31 PM »
US life expectancy dropped a little further in 2017: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46389147

Population growth worldwide may yet slow down still further if more countries hit a life expectancy peak. Currently it seems to be just the UK and USA, though...

wdmn

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #461 on: December 05, 2018, 04:56:54 AM »
Thought I would share these two graphs. The first shows the correlation between CO2 ppm in the atmosphere and global population from 1958 to 2018. The correlation is 0.9941975 (with 1 being perfect correlation and 0 being inverse correlation).

The second graph shows the same thing but with the global urban population. The correlation is 0.9996965. When a simple linear regression model treating urban population as a predictor for CO2 ppm in the atmosphere is run on an 80:20 test (to predict 20% of the data that we already have) the results are:

actual            predicted
1. 315.2910   314.7350
2. 315.9758   315.6139
3. 318.9867   319.3612
4. 330.2383   330.3226
5. 341.1258   340.4967
6. 342.7775   341.9325

I'm not suggesting that this is a complete picture by any means, but it's interesting.

« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 05:46:53 AM by wdmn »

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3653
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #462 on: December 05, 2018, 07:38:58 PM »
Thought I would share these two graphs. The first shows the correlation between CO2 ppm in the atmosphere and global population from 1958 to 2018. The correlation is 0.9941975

The second graph shows the same thing but with the global urban population. The correlation is 0.9996965.
How did you resist saying that, all other things being equal, a rise in population to x billion implies a CO2 ppm of y ?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

wdmn

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #463 on: December 06, 2018, 03:10:05 AM »
Thought I would share these two graphs. The first shows the correlation between CO2 ppm in the atmosphere and global population from 1958 to 2018. The correlation is 0.9941975

The second graph shows the same thing but with the global urban population. The correlation is 0.9996965.
How did you resist saying that, all other things being equal, a rise in population to x billion implies a CO2 ppm of y ?

Hah, I've been batted down for making bold claims so many times that I thought I would play it safe. But also, both models (population total, and urban population), tended to under estimate the co2ppm the closer to present and into the future. So, for example, it predicts 408.3 ppm for a population of 8 billion, though we're already over 408.3 ppm and just under 7.7 billion.

That said, ceteris paribus, a global population of 9.5 billion would be 437.28ppm, 10 billion would be 446.94 and 11 billion gives 466.26 ppm. Again, all are likely to be low. Just for fun, upper estimate for population for 2100 is about 16 billion, which predicts 562.87 ppm of co2.

Just to demonstrate how striking this correlation is. Compare it to the one that exists between co2 ppm in the atmosphere to global energy consumption of co2 emitting fuels in TWH (I included nat gas since CH4 eventually contributes to co2). Correlation is 0.9927435, a worse fit than either of the other two.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2018, 03:16:06 AM by wdmn »

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2976
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 320
  • Likes Given: 596
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #464 on: December 06, 2018, 03:58:47 AM »
I don't think this has predictive value. Both curves are sadly growing steadily and appear to correlate well, but their drivers are quiet different. And should population plateau at last, CO2 will most probably continue growing.
Total population x Affluence x Emission intensity = Rate of change of CO2.

wdmn

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #465 on: December 06, 2018, 05:05:14 AM »
I don't think this has predictive value. Both curves are sadly growing steadily and appear to correlate well, but their drivers are quiet different. And should population plateau at last, CO2 will most probably continue growing.
Total population x Affluence x Emission intensity = Rate of change of CO2.
Why'd you have to go and ruin the fun oren? Of corse it is one of those beautiful correlations that are overly simplistic.

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2976
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 320
  • Likes Given: 596
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #466 on: December 06, 2018, 05:06:18 AM »
Sorry...  :-[

wdmn

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #467 on: December 06, 2018, 05:16:11 AM »
Sorry...  :-[
Science would be so much easier if it didn't have to be right.

sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3862
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #468 on: December 06, 2018, 05:32:29 AM »
Re: Science would be so much easier if it didn't have to be right.

And prettier. Many beautiful theories have foundered on ugly facts.

sidd

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4113
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #469 on: December 06, 2018, 07:52:06 AM »

A wonderful job making the graphs wdmn!
Did you make them believing they might follow so closely?

The correlation is amazing, and unexpected - at least by me.

Terry

wdmn

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #470 on: December 06, 2018, 08:04:22 AM »
Thank you Terry. I actually got the idea from looking at the attached graphs. I couldn't help but notice that the shape of growth in co2 (upper left blue) and population (upper left red) were nearly identical, going back even as far as pre-industrial.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3653
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #471 on: December 06, 2018, 06:33:46 PM »
Thank you Terry. I actually got the idea from looking at the attached graphs. I couldn't help but notice that the shape of growth in co2 (upper left blue) and population (upper left red) were nearly identical, going back even as far as pre-industrial.
As Oren said:-
Total population x Affluence x Emission intensity = Rate of change of CO2.

Looking at the graphs, the GDP growth is far steeper than population growth (post WWII), and this would produce a lower correlation if used instead of population? Is this because Emission Intensity per unit of GDP has fallen somewhat.

And again, this equation surely gives CO2 emissions.

To do the change in CO2 ppm, one would have to put in the effectiveness of the carbon sinks. E.g. the scripps keeling curve website states that the effectiveness of the ocean sinks today is less than in pre-industrial times.

Suddenly a beautiful simple X-Y equation has A, B, C, D......... to be chucked in as well.

Ho-hum.

Ps: The point is still valid. Until today (and until 2030 at least) the more people, the more economic activity, the more emissions and the more CO2 ppm (even if the well-off do more than their fair share). It is built into the IPCC scenarios.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

wdmn

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #472 on: December 06, 2018, 08:02:42 PM »
Global GDP per annum and co2 ppm have a correlation of 0.9734885.