Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

mperklin t1_jdy4tlu wrote

8.6 Billion isn’t a growth rate. It’s a population count.

A rate is a number over time

A growth rate would be 1 Billion per decade

530

patman_007 t1_jdy7x7i wrote

Is this not saying that the rate in which our population increases will peak roughly around the time we have 8.6 billion people? And would the rate not be annually?

Obviously the population won't pull a 180 and immediately start shrinking. It will start to grow at a slower rate until the growth rate slows into a decline...

I swear some people just have to be edgy and controversial.

59

GetOffMyLawn1729 t1_jdyimvu wrote

no, that is what the headline says, but the first sentence in the article reads "A new projection of the population growth rate highlights that the world’s population could peak at 8.5 billion people by 2050, and decline to 7 billion in 2100".

The person writing the headline is an idiot made a very basic mistake. As others have said, at the point the population reaches its maximum, the rate of change will be 0.

67

patman_007 t1_jdzxfql wrote

The article flips back and forth. But looking at some other info it is the population that will peak, not the growth rate.

11

turd_vinegar t1_je0t6kh wrote

Growth rate should peak and decline before population peaks. Unless there is some cataclysmic event that drives it down suddenly, like a nuclear war.

Someone could argue that there is a time interval that when tracked in nano seconds displays a sudden drop in growth rate before those hypothetical millions perished, but this is more pedantic than practical and wouldn't give much insight into how society was changing at that time.

3

turd_vinegar t1_je0s54q wrote

There is a discrete aspect both in time and in number of humans (not to mention non-linearities to rates due to catastrophes) so it might not be exactly 0 over some time interval, but yes, there should be some identifiable relative maxima in population near rate ~0.

1

Mydickradiates t1_je4rkne wrote

I don't know, the word highlights means the growth rate is implied resulting in the peak count of 8.5 billion people. I think you people are being super picky

1

mperklin t1_jdy8ccw wrote

No, because if the population tops out at 8.6 billion people then the growth rate is 0 (which is not the peak/highest value)

The population may peak at 8.6 Billion, though.

…

^”Ackshually”

9

ExoticSalamander4 t1_jdyj0u4 wrote

This is directly analogous to physics

Population is displacement

Growth rate is velocity

Growth rate peaking means acceleration is 0

So the article *title says acceleration will have fallen to zero by the time displacement is 8.6 billion

4

SrpskaZemlja t1_jdz9k83 wrote

You have it off when you're bringing acceleration into this.

That would be the rate of change of the rate of change of population. Aka the rate at which the growth rate itself changes.

This article, beyond the bungled headline, says population will peak at 8.6 billion people.

When the amount of people stops rising and begins falling, at that moment, the growth rate is zero. The headline is totally screwed up and conflicts with the article.

There's no point anywhere here where a second derivative (acceleration) is brought in.

EDIT: Really, downvotes? You guys aren't even gonna try to tell me my math is wrong?

2

quokka70 t1_je3hkp5 wrote

You are right. The article is saying that the population will peak in 2050, although its headline, which is gibberish, mentions the growth rate peaking, which is what u/ExoticSalamander4 was talking about.

Many years ago I heard a TV reporter say that inflation was accelerating at an increasing rate of speed. I'm not sure how many derivatives that is, but almost certainly more than intended.

3

SrpskaZemlja t1_je3hvip wrote

Relevant funny Wikipedia excerpt:

"When campaigning for a second term in office, U.S. President Richard Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing, which has been noted as "the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection."[2] Since inflation is itself a derivative—the rate at which the purchasing power of money decreases—then the rate of increase of inflation is the derivative of inflation, opposite in sign to the second time derivative of the purchasing power of money. Stating that a function is decreasing is equivalent to stating that its derivative is negative, so Nixon's statement is that the second derivative of inflation is negative, and so the third derivative of purchasing power is positive.

Nixon's statement allowed for the rate of inflation to increase, however, so his statement was not as indicative of stable prices as it sounds."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_derivative

2

SometimesaGirl- t1_je078rz wrote

> The population may peak at 8.6 Billion, though.

I doubt it. The population of parts of Africa (Nigeria for example) is set to quadruple over the next decade or so.
The counterbalance is Europe + China declining. Both (largely) regions where religion has little sway over the population and birth control and the command of go forth and multiply are meaningless.
Now... getting back to Africa...
Oh, shit.

3

patman_007 t1_jdy8onm wrote

But the growth rate won't immediately decline to 0 or a negative. It will first rise, then peak, then slow then reverse. And that peak will be at roughly 8.6 billion people....

This isn't saying our population will max out at 8.6 billion.

0

SrpskaZemlja t1_jdz967u wrote

But the article is saying the population will max out at 8.6 billion. The headline was written wrong, as the article clearly goes on to say that our population will peak at 8.6 billion.

When you reach the peak of the amount of something over time, at that moment your growth rate is zero. That is not only common sense but also basic calculus.

16

patman_007 t1_jdzwlm4 wrote

I'm chalking this to the author not understanding what they were writing. Because if you read the article they flip back and forth between stating the growth rate will peak at that population marker, followed by that the population itself will peaked then. And those are two totally seperate peaks, honestly don't think they could predict the highest possible population that would be harder to determine. NOW, looking through some other info it does appear it is the population that peaks around 8.6 billion.

You need to restudy calculus. Because that's exactly what my point is derived from - see what I did there?? The growth peak will not be the same time as the growth rate peak ( a secondary difference). The growth rate will peak, and THEN when the growth rate hits 1 to 1 the population will begin to decline.

What your stating would be true if humans had kids on a 1:1 ratio, but if the population growth rate peaks at 4 children per 2 adults than there will be a period of time when the growth rate declines from 4 children per to 2 children per and that will still see an increase in population, even post peak growth rate.

−1

spovax t1_jdya49r wrote

You are correct. The growth rate could peak when the population is 8.9B. Odd thing to point out.

Too lazy to read the article, but I assume they’re saying population growth will stop and the population will be 8.9 billion at the top.

Just because the peak is a growth rate doesn’t mean we can’t reference other numbers at the same time. I realize I’m being nitpicky, but so is the dumbass above you who’s being nitpicky.

4

patman_007 t1_jdyb9x8 wrote

No, they're saying the rate at which the population will grow will peak at 8.6 billion people LMAO. It will continue to grow for a bit after, but just at a smaller rate. Then finally it will decline which will shrink the population.

You are not nitpicky, you are misunderstanding what they are saying. And I don't know what other numbers you are referencing... But I do agree It's an odd thing to state, we can agree about that.

1

Norwester77 t1_jdyni8l wrote

No, they’re saying the population is projected to top out at 8.6 billion, so the population growth rate must already be well off its peak.

If this graphic is to be believed, the global population growth rate hit its maximum somewhere around 1980-1990:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Absolute_increase_in_global_population_per_year%2C_OWID.svg

13

quokka70 t1_je3ian0 wrote

And that's the absolute change.

The growth rate, relative to the population at the time, topped out in 1963.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-growth-rates?tab=chart

1

Plastic-Wear-3576 t1_jdyyetq wrote

The confusion is that the headline and opening sentence of the article itself are different.

The headline says what you're saying, the highest rate of population growth will be at 8.6 billion people, then that rate will taper off, but their will still be growth.

The first sentence in the article says that at current growth rates, the highest POPULATION, not growth rate, will be at 8.6 billion people, where the population will then begin to decline.

Simplified:

Headline -> Population will grow past 8.6 billion. Article -> Population will not grow past 8.6 billion.

11

SrpskaZemlja t1_jdz9nko wrote

I'm disappointed both with journalists and with redditors' confidently wrong calculus knowledge this morning.

5

patman_007 t1_jdzxbdy wrote

I'm amazed at some people's confidence in things they are wrong about.

1

phunkydroid t1_je075v9 wrote

I'm amazed you keep commenting without reading past the headline.

3

patman_007 t1_je0ntl3 wrote

I'm not commenting on what the article was stating, just pointing out that growth rate and population total are two separate things.

1

phunkydroid t1_je0rrq0 wrote

>I'm not commenting on what the article was stating

Then why did you say:

>No, they're saying the rate at which the population will grow will peak at 8.6 billion people LMAO.

​

> just pointing out that growth rate and population total are two separate things.

Which is what the first person in this thread said when you got snarky with them. The headline says rate, but the article clearly talks about the overall population, despite the word rate being incorrectly used.

The rate peaked already. It's in decline now. The article is about the population peaking in 2050 and then declining for the second half of the century to 7 billion by 2100. Total, not the rate.

1

BasvanS t1_je0x5j0 wrote

Yeah, the thought it triggered with me is “Where will the population peak? 10 billion? 11? More?”

3

IVIUAD-DIB t1_je02sx5 wrote

The growth rate will be zero when it gets to that total number of people.

1

savvy-misanthrope t1_je8ru06 wrote

A mistake more glaring as this is supposed to be a science-related article, from a so-called journalist.

1

turboknight t1_jdy9i4l wrote

I find it kind of mind blowing that when Jane Fonda was in primary school, who is still alive mind you, there was only 2.5 billion people on the planet.

271

Alexstarfire t1_jdz2anu wrote

And just over 2 billion for Jimmy Carter, who is also still alive. Though maybe not for much longer.

116

110397 t1_jdz3oy8 wrote

> Jimmy Carter, who is also still alive. Though maybe not for much longer.

Him and queen eliz- wait no uh mikhail gorb- err not him either uhh.. henry kissinger?

27

VFDan t1_jdz7xu9 wrote

Breaking news: Kissinger dies while Reddit user writes comment about him

57

110397 t1_jdzaa33 wrote

Implying that he could die in the first place

55

indr4neel t1_jdzpm38 wrote

Birth rate plummets across the developing world as parents realize they no longer have to be ready for Kissinger-based child mortality

20

Breith37 t1_jdzsfks wrote

If only the good die young, Kissinger will crest two centuries taking his natural form as the Crypt Keeper.

12

tretower424 t1_je0t3iv wrote

OK, that’s it. I’m putting it on my BINGO card…

1

MrPlowThatsTheName t1_jdyb8eh wrote

Is this some reference or joke I’m not getting?

−24

turboknight t1_jdycc2t wrote

Just something I heard on the Conan O'Brien podcast when he was interviewing her. I should have just said "in 1940" :D

24

peon2 t1_je1dk1v wrote

I listened to that one yesterday and immediately knew that was what you were referencing lol. It was too specific to be coincidental

2

peon2 t1_je1dime wrote

I listened to that one yesterday and immediately knew that was what you were referencing lol. It was too specific to be coincidental

1

Now_Wait-4-Last_Year t1_jdykh9u wrote

I think they're just using someone who's still alive but around for a few decades as an example as to how much the population has grown.

16

MrPlowThatsTheName t1_je0adfd wrote

Okay but it’s so random though. Like why not just say in 1950, or during the Truman administration or something. I don’t think most people know when random old celebrity X was in grade school.

2

kenlasalle t1_jdxjg8j wrote

From the people who brought you "This has to end at 5 billion" and "Absolutetly no more than 7, we think. Bob says 7.4."

105

money_loo t1_jdy2jzz wrote

Yes, scientists adapt and evolve and argue amongst each other for the most up to date information.

Some people like that.

107

On-mountain-time t1_jdy6noz wrote

That doesn't sound smart. We should definitely pick a position, and stick with it regardless of new information or models. /s

72

110397 t1_jdz3u9w wrote

Maybe write it down in a book that doesn’t change for 2000+ years

15

spleddittor t1_jdymiip wrote

Guys, it’s at 8.7 billion now…

5

Excludos t1_jdzrgyx wrote

Motherfu..I told you no more than 7.4! I can stretch to 7.8, but that's as far as I'm willing to go. You can't have it your way just because you have the latest data

5

Eeeegah t1_jdyajw9 wrote

It hardly reads like a scientific paper at all. It just talks about how maybe that is a number we can hit if we work to alleviate global poverty and poor living conditions. It says nothing about climate change causing increasingly scarce drinking water and food shortages. To me it feels like we could be very near the peak global population now, and are headed for a pretty unpleasant crash in the next 50 years or so, perhaps a lot less.

37

HardlyDecent t1_jdzl8ob wrote

It's not a scientific article, it's a news report about one.

18

IVIUAD-DIB t1_je02xlu wrote

Why would we want to hit that number? Humans are suffocating the planet. We should be trying to bring that number down.

6

OldWolf2 t1_je26844 wrote

Peak population estimates have traditionally come in at around 10-11 billion , so it would be welcome news if it turns out to be only 8.6 .

2

Eeeegah t1_je03vuf wrote

I'm 100% with you - I was just commenting on how much garbage the article was.

1

Busman123 t1_jdzdjbn wrote

Wait, the rate? Don't they mean the actual population.

22

teejaysaz t1_je0f651 wrote

We desperately need half the people, a four day work week, and the robots digging the ditches.

We can do it, gang. Keep the dream alive.

12

Maximum-Carpet2740 t1_je10z59 wrote

Overpopulation is ecofascist propaganda.

−9

teejaysaz t1_je140c7 wrote

...In your opinion.

There are a finite amount of resources on the planet. Unless we can learn to manage them, completely sustainabably, then the less people gobbling them up, the better. ....In my opinion.

9

Arkenos8118 t1_je2ejmu wrote

There really isn't. Those who think that many resources are so finite are really just ignorant of how large the planet is and our current level of technology.

1

teejaysaz t1_je57lx5 wrote

Wait. Just wait..... you actually believe that there are an INFINITE amount of resources on a little ball of rock and water hurtling itself through space/time?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_resource

I don't always argue with idiots on reddit, but when I do, I argue for good reason.

1

Arkenos8118 t1_je8c429 wrote

Infinite? No. Nowhere did I say infinite. But acting as if any of our elements are going to just run out is hilarious. The earth is huge, and anything making up even a fraction of a percentage of the crust is in huge abundance.

Also, very good job linking me to a Wikipedia page I'm not going to click on.

2

RazDazBird t1_je2bfwk wrote

"Over population is a myth" is a myth to keep the people poor, stupid, and desperately clawing for resources.

4

ColdSteel-1983 t1_jdywvj5 wrote

Before crashing uncontrollably as the 4 horsemen ride across the earth.

8

bdiddy_ t1_jdzkvgf wrote

humanity will be a flash in the pan on earths timeline that's for sure.

Hopefully millions of years after we've fucked this all up evolution will produce a much less shitty intelligent species.

5

Dr-Chris-C t1_jdz2f8o wrote

8.6 billion is the rate?

6

Excludos t1_jdzrn4h wrote

Personally, I'm not looking forward to having an increase in population by 8.6 billion every year

5

MatthiasMcCulle t1_jdzev63 wrote

So businesses who rely on exponential population growth need to start changing their models soon.

I see this as win!

5

phunkydroid t1_je06hd9 wrote

Bad headline. If the growth rate peaks at 8.6 billion what does that even mean? It'll keep growing but slightly slower after that? No, the article says the population will peak there, not the rate.

5

[deleted] t1_jdyyq6o wrote

[removed]

4

sailee94 t1_jdzamiw wrote

Actually, the latest one was done via in vitro. Allegedly.

2

Rednewtcn t1_jdz25o3 wrote

China and India be like, oh fuck off we can beat that in a couple years.

4

SalmonNgiri t1_je00bth wrote

This joke would be funny to people who don’t file the news. The Chinese population has been stagnant for a while now.

11

youngmindoldbody t1_jdzwi7v wrote

I bet $1 we exceed 8.7 billion before Trump dies.

3

justforthearticles20 t1_je0o6dv wrote

After that, the mass die offs from Heat, Drought, and Famine will sharply reduce the population, and that assumes no big wars over water.

3

TupperwareConspiracy t1_je14nmu wrote

Not at all...

The issue is fertility rates in the bulk of the northern hemisphere are already on the decline - those women having children, most are having 1 or 2 which isn't nearly enough to maintain population #s ... extreme examples include Japan, Norway & Russia (even before the war in Ukraine) which are net negative now and will continue to lose population baring substantial immigration.

China has peaked and the United States would be right behind if not for immigration keeping numbers up.

The only substantially growing population is in Sub-Sahara Africa / without that world pop would be on the decline

2

justforthearticles20 t1_je1hxbg wrote

What you say is true, but humans are actively and knowingly creating an extinction level event that is going to bring the population down fast, and there will be wars over water, possibly in our lifetimes.

2

Allaroundlost t1_jdyxn9a wrote

Its way to expensive to live and even more unaffordable then have kids, raised outside of poverty.

1

mobileagnes t1_je0kqk7 wrote

According to Our World In Data, the global population growth rate peaked in the late 1980s. It will take several decades beyond that for the absolute number to also peak. It's crazy that some people living today will see a day when the global population will peak when we've been fed about population overload for so long.

1

turd_vinegar t1_je0qtsl wrote

So the growth rate (first derivative of population change?) is expected to be its maximum value at population= 8.6 billion?

1

roborobert123 t1_je3k26f wrote

Does this mean the world population will decline at some point?

1

[deleted] t1_je07rls wrote

I'm not surprised. North America, Most of Europe, And especially China and India which are two of the biggest countries in the world right now are at below population replacement rates. If there is a surefire, cheap, and easy to produce cure for AIDS and Ebola the Continent of Africa's population might shoot up next As the basic research I just did implied that they had a two points 6% increase and 2022 ending up with an approximate population of 1.4 billion...

0

madrid987 OP t1_jdxj7q9 wrote

Experts do not seem to detect that Africa's population is exploding and that some countries, including Uzbekistan(Population growth is already at the African level), are experiencing explosive birth rates growth.

−1

mhornberger t1_jdy8dth wrote

The point is that Africa's birthrate is declining. Every time they look, the decline is happening faster than anticipated. I am confident that experts are aware of the existence of the continent of Africa, and are not excluding those countries from their population projections.

Uzbekistan also has a population of 35 million.

40

SalmonNgiri t1_je00hj0 wrote

I always got a chuckle from those charts that used to predict cities like Kinshasa and Lagos would have 70 million population by 2050.

Like do they think as these places urbanize they would keep having kids at the rate an agrarian population?

9

savvy-misanthrope t1_je8t7s7 wrote

The population of Africa has been steadily increasing, according to the United Nations:

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/africa-population/

1

mhornberger t1_je8udlo wrote

Yes, I am aware that the birthrate is currently still above the replacement rate. The point was that the birthrate is declining. It is expected to dip below the replacement rate within a couple of decades. I said the birthrate was declining, not that the population was declining.

2

ToxicAdamm t1_jdxxbhc wrote

Africa will be no different than all the other emerging economies. As they achieve a certain amount of wealth, health and education, they will temper their population also. Just as every other nation has done.

20

madrid987 OP t1_jdz77wt wrote

Changes in Uzbekistan's Total fertility Rate

2012 - 2.19

2017 - 2.42

2018 - 2.60

2019 - 2.79

2020 - 2.90

2021 - 3.17

2022 - 3.2

January-February 2023 increased 3.5% year-on-year

How long will it increase

​

Uzbekistan's population growth rate has already exceeded 2.1% per year. Where the hell is the end??

−6

NoWayNotThisAgain t1_jdzcft6 wrote

When your economy is premised on the growth of GDP out pacing the growth of debt, shrinking population leads to societal collapse.

−1

TopCheesecakeGirl t1_jdz6n5n wrote

That’s too many people. We must find a way to reduce the size of the population. How about out of touch governments, pollution, misogyny, climate change disasters, asteroids and another world war?

−4

MaybeACoder007 t1_jdy7ef8 wrote

This is so sad. Despite all of our efforts to reduce the population—we’re still eating ourselves alive.

−5

[deleted] t1_jdxl3a1 wrote

[deleted]

−10

toomuchtodotoday t1_jdxtoji wrote

Educated, empowered women have less children or no children. Keep empowering women and ensuring they have robust access to contraceptives.

https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#what-explains-the-change-in-the-number-of-children-women-have

79

peepjynx t1_jdyriqm wrote

The section on France was particularly interesting.

4

cogrothen t1_jdxy9jz wrote

In much of the world, it is declining birth rates that are leading the population to fall. Food is not a bottleneck at all. Why would lab grown meats suddenly lead to more population growth?

55

FrostByte_62 t1_jdyn9wj wrote

It wouldn't because such a trend completely ignores factors like socioeconomics or societal disposition on reproduction.

13

HardlyDecent t1_jdzlfhp wrote

And distribution... We've technically had enough food for everyone and Mars since like the 50s.

2

chess_1010 t1_jdxwrfp wrote

The limiting factor to agriculture is the need for nitrate and phosphate. Nitrate fertilizer is made industrially from natural gas. Phosphate is largely mined. An emerging problem is that the world's topsoil is deteriorating at a high rate.

It's not a question of lab grown meats and fats: it's the core staple products of wheat, rice, corn, and soybeans. These supply the wold's calories, either directly or indirectly, and they cannot exist without natural gas and mined phosphate. Lab grown foods will still need feed, likely to come from some combo of soy and corn. It doesn't get us around this problem.

When exactly this could be a problem is a subject of speculation. I think Malthus was probably too pessimistic, and was focused on the wrong parts of the issue. Current pessimistic predictions have us either exhausting our easy phosphate supply, or destroying our topsoils, long before we use all the available natural gas.

23

Safe_Indication_6829 t1_jdz5exn wrote

Malthus made back of the envelope calculations a couple hundred years ago, was wrong, never became right, and yet people still use him to justify killing poor people (always the poor, no Malthusian ever suggests starting at the top)

2