World Population has grown by more than 5 billion since 1912! Watch

This discussion is closed.
Sovr'gnChancellor£
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
100 years ago, the world population was approximately just under 1.7 billion humans. Today, China alone has nearly 80% of that figure (i.e. more than 1.3 billion people). The planet now holds nearly 7.1 billion humans.

In 1812, the population was well under 1 billion (approx 860 million people).

How and why has the global population exploded? It's massive - growth by 5 billion!
1
Adileh
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
Not sure what the exact figures are but the third world is responsible for almost all of that growth.
4
jumblehunter
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
(Original post by Adileh)
Not sure what the exact figures are but the third world is responsible for almost all of that growth.
Ah that makes sense. We only had one world back then. Thats where the other 5 billion must have come from.
4
DH-Biker
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
Simple maths states that the higher the population, the more people there are to have children. Population is simply exponential growth. Combined with a myriad of social, cultural and economical factors, the world has experienced this colossal population growth and will continue to do so.
0
Shabalala
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
disgusting stuff we are wrecking our planet and then we will all moan and cry when famines and wars break out (or our grand kids will) but people are too blind to see it and are happy to carry on ignoring it.
2
Adileh
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by jumblehunter)
Ah that makes sense. We only had one world back then. Thats where the other 5 billion must have come from.

Look at the stats. Out of every 100 people born 97 are from third world.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12288263
0
g_star_raw_1989
Badges: 15
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by Adileh)
Look at the stats. Out of every 100 people born 97 are from third world.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12288263
I would bet that those 3/100 born in the first world consumer more if not much more than the 97 from the third world over a life time.
1
Dhaal_Chawal
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
Less chance of dying from diseases etc
0
Pinkhead
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
Haber Process, exponential growth of population, longer life expectancy, etc.
0
TheHistoryStudent
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
Improving technology I'm putting it down to, because it has implications in healthcare and also food production, which are pretty much the corner stones of what you need for population growth (along with I think, a clean water supply, which again can be helped along with technological advances).

As for whether growth on that scale is good for earth - I'm inclined to say no, at least, if we do not control how much we consume and how much we reproduce. In the process of changing the earth to suit our needs (for e.g. finding ever more sources of food) we can be extremely destructive to the natural world, and since AFAIK we couldn't bring extinct species back to life that means that we need to take care of it to preserve the bio-diversity of the planet; unless of course, we want to create a world perfectly suited to our needs and nothing else's, something which I personally am against.
0
AgentSushi
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
David Attenborough did a very good documentary on this issue, I think it was called 'How many people can live on earth?' or something like that.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
Interesting statistics, it seems that the population increased by 100% between 1812-1912 and 200% between 1912-2012.

The primary causes are of course access to a greater level of food and water in combination with healthcare and technology.
0
Izzyeviel
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
I'm pretty sure the 1812 figure was an under estimate. I'm pretty sure no through census was conducted in Africa or Asia or Australia.

Still whichever way you look it, it's still a massive increase. Do we know when the 8,000,000,000th child will be born?
0
jamespierce0987
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
Can't wait for the day when the world takes a leaf out of China's book and implements a 1 child policy. People need to use their heads...our planet can only sustain life for a certain amount of people. When will political and religious nutters realise that.
0
navarre
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
(Original post by jamespierce0987)
Can't wait for the day when the world takes a leaf out of China's book and implements a 1 child policy. People need to use their heads...our planet can only sustain life for a certain amount of people. When will political and religious nutters realise that.
The 1 child policy will turn out disastrous for China. Just to explain a bit of economics for you; you need lots of young people who are fit for work to keep the economy moving (and growing). In twenty years, China will severely regret the OCP- you can't exactly run a country effectively when most people are care home-bound pensioners and only a minority are young enough to have jobs.

So yeah, basically, your solution is stupid. Our population would only continue to age and there would be less people available to do the crucial jobs.
0
tehforum
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 7 years ago
#16
Down to more food, and better healthcare.
0
Bluffroom
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
[most] people have been busy!
0
jamespierce0987
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#18
Report 7 years ago
#18
(Original post by navarre)
The 1 child policy will turn out disastrous for China. Just to explain a bit of economics for you; you need lots of young people who are fit for work to keep the economy moving (and growing). In twenty years, China will severely regret the OCP- you can't exactly run a country effectively when most people are care home-bound pensioners and only a minority are young enough to have jobs.

So yeah, basically, your solution is stupid. Our population would only continue to age and there would be less people available to do the crucial jobs.
I study the subject at uni so I understand what you're saying from an economic perspective.

But do you not see the flaw in the system that is capitalism. A system that relies on more and more people being born into the world, so that they'll always be more demand for goods and thus people will have jobs as they'll be work for them to do. Forget about having the correct labour force to carry out crucial jobs, have you thought about how people are going to survive? There are soon to be food shortages, severe droughts etc. Think about the wars that will spark. The world can't even agree on climate change, so I don't know how they're going to agree on how to spread food among the world's population, then we throw into the mix a nuclear bomb.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
(Original post by jamespierce0987)
Can't wait for the day when the world takes a leaf out of China's book and implements a 1 child policy. People need to use their heads...our planet can only sustain life for a certain amount of people. When will political and religious nutters realise that.
A one child policy is not needed, we see across the world that access to contraception and higher living standards result in a decline of the birth rate.

There are three main issues which the world faces with a rising population...

1) Lack of food

2) Lack of water

3) Lack of energy

In regards to a lack of food this is actually a myth, even at current productivity rates we already produce enough food for the entire world (and we waste a colossal amount too). The problem here is a lack of distribution to poor countries because they are too poor to import it and corrupt governments which do not seek to provide food for their people (instead they sell the land).

In regards to a lack of water this is tied to food. We have without a doubt more than enough water on the planet for each and every person, the problem is people living away from water sources and the fact that only 2% of water if fresh rather than salt. The solution here is to built closer to coasts whilst providing water from desalinization plants, it will cost more however the fresh water inland can be used for food production which can increase via greater land availability.

In regards to lack of energy it is quite simply any lack of energy is due to inefficient governments not creating a strategy for energy production, we have a tirade of ways to produce energy not including oil, again cost is the issue here.

In summary, the issue here is not whether we can produce enough food, water and energy for a rising population but whether we can allocate these resources more efficiently by adopting strategy rather than allowing people to live in the middle of rural Oxfordshire.
0
navarre
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 7 years ago
#20
(Original post by jamespierce0987)
I study the subject at uni so I understand what you're saying from an economic perspective.

But do you not see the flaw in the system that is capitalism. A system that relies on more and more people being born into the world, so that they'll always be more demand for goods and thus people will have jobs as they'll be work for them to do. Forget about having the correct labour force to carry out crucial jobs, have you thought about how people are going to survive? There are soon to be food shortages, severe droughts etc. Think about the wars that will spark. The world can't even agree on climate change, so I don't know how they're going to agree on how to spread food among the world's population, then we throw into the mix a nuclear bomb.
How is this anything to do with capitalism? A declining birth rate and ageing population would be a problem for any economic or political system, be it capitalist, Communist or feudal.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (534)
66.5%
No (269)
33.5%

Watched Threads

View All