Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
World population hits 7 billion
wondering
Veteran
Today, you are one of 7 billion people on Earth.
This historic milestone is rekindling age-old debates over birth control, protecting natural resources and reducing consumption. It also has many wondering whether the Earth can support so many people.
About half were added just in the past 40 years, and 3 billion more are expected by 2100.
Global population has swelled in record time since 1987, when it hit 5 billion.
"Currently, world population is growing at the most rapid pace in history," says Carl Haub, a demographer at the Population Reference Bureau. "In 1900, we were at 1.6 billion. In 99 years, we flipped the numbers to 6.1 billion."
The world is adding more people in less time but the annual growth rate is slowing down — from 2.1% in the late 1960s to 1.2% today — reflecting lower birth rates.
"In 1999, when we passed the 6 billion mark, the world economy was in hyperdrive," says Robert Lang, urban sociologist at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. "Now we pass the 7 billion mark in a recession and there's much pessimism."
Recessions and depressions tend to slow population growth, especially in developed nations. Currently, growth is highest in poorest countries where health care advances are keeping people alive longer while birth rates are still relatively high.
The result is a yawning age gap. In Germany, 21% of the population is 65 and older and 23% in Japan. In countries such as Gambia or Senegal, only 2% are elderly.
Many of the programs to reduce population growth have been successful, Haub says.
"I can only imagine what population size would have been today if that had not happened," he says.
However many more people are added in the next century, more will live in cities. Even in developing nations, a growing share of the population lives in urbanized areas, a shift that is leading to denser living and putting more pressure to reduce energy use and build new infrastructure .
"Seven billion people are 7 billion good reasons for sustainable infrastructure development," says Daryl Dulaney, president and CEO of Siemens Industry, a leading supplier of transportation and building technology.
Only 28.8% of the world's population lived in urban areas in 1950. Today, just over 50% do and the United Nations projects that almost 69% will by 2050, when the population is expected to reach 9.3 billion. The number of people who live in cities by then will almost equal today's world population.
That's why Siemens created the Infrastructure and Cities Sector this month.
"From a city's perspective, what this is doing is putting additional pressure to be competitive in the world," says Dulaney, who heads Siemens' new division in the USA. "Global companies can go anywhere. If America is going to compete to attract businesses … the way they compete is with infrastructure, a good quality of life."
Cities in developing nations have an edge of sorts because they're building from scratch and can apply the latest green technologies. In developed nations such as the USA, the challenge is to retrofit old buildings, power grids and roads.
Many are doing it. Siemens installed 40,000 new lights in Houston's traffic signal system, cutting energy use and saving $1.4 million a year, Dulaney says. Dallas is getting a smart grid that will integrate water, electrical and other services.
"With 19th-century technology, the planet could not have handled 2 billion people," Lang says. "It would have consumed every stick of wood, which was a principal source of fuel."
Groups such as the Population Institute, an organization that advocates family planning around the world, are calling for more international support to reduce births.
"People in the developing world are on the front line of climate change and food insecurity," says Robert Walker, executive vice president. "Of all the very significant challenges that we face in the world today, many of those issues appear to be almost insurmountable challenges. Population growth is not."
located at.....http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-10-30/world-population-hits-seven-billion/51007670/1
This historic milestone is rekindling age-old debates over birth control, protecting natural resources and reducing consumption. It also has many wondering whether the Earth can support so many people.
About half were added just in the past 40 years, and 3 billion more are expected by 2100.
Global population has swelled in record time since 1987, when it hit 5 billion.
"Currently, world population is growing at the most rapid pace in history," says Carl Haub, a demographer at the Population Reference Bureau. "In 1900, we were at 1.6 billion. In 99 years, we flipped the numbers to 6.1 billion."
The world is adding more people in less time but the annual growth rate is slowing down — from 2.1% in the late 1960s to 1.2% today — reflecting lower birth rates.
"In 1999, when we passed the 6 billion mark, the world economy was in hyperdrive," says Robert Lang, urban sociologist at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. "Now we pass the 7 billion mark in a recession and there's much pessimism."
Recessions and depressions tend to slow population growth, especially in developed nations. Currently, growth is highest in poorest countries where health care advances are keeping people alive longer while birth rates are still relatively high.
The result is a yawning age gap. In Germany, 21% of the population is 65 and older and 23% in Japan. In countries such as Gambia or Senegal, only 2% are elderly.
Many of the programs to reduce population growth have been successful, Haub says.
"I can only imagine what population size would have been today if that had not happened," he says.
However many more people are added in the next century, more will live in cities. Even in developing nations, a growing share of the population lives in urbanized areas, a shift that is leading to denser living and putting more pressure to reduce energy use and build new infrastructure .
"Seven billion people are 7 billion good reasons for sustainable infrastructure development," says Daryl Dulaney, president and CEO of Siemens Industry, a leading supplier of transportation and building technology.
Only 28.8% of the world's population lived in urban areas in 1950. Today, just over 50% do and the United Nations projects that almost 69% will by 2050, when the population is expected to reach 9.3 billion. The number of people who live in cities by then will almost equal today's world population.
That's why Siemens created the Infrastructure and Cities Sector this month.
"From a city's perspective, what this is doing is putting additional pressure to be competitive in the world," says Dulaney, who heads Siemens' new division in the USA. "Global companies can go anywhere. If America is going to compete to attract businesses … the way they compete is with infrastructure, a good quality of life."
Cities in developing nations have an edge of sorts because they're building from scratch and can apply the latest green technologies. In developed nations such as the USA, the challenge is to retrofit old buildings, power grids and roads.
Many are doing it. Siemens installed 40,000 new lights in Houston's traffic signal system, cutting energy use and saving $1.4 million a year, Dulaney says. Dallas is getting a smart grid that will integrate water, electrical and other services.
"With 19th-century technology, the planet could not have handled 2 billion people," Lang says. "It would have consumed every stick of wood, which was a principal source of fuel."
Groups such as the Population Institute, an organization that advocates family planning around the world, are calling for more international support to reduce births.
"People in the developing world are on the front line of climate change and food insecurity," says Robert Walker, executive vice president. "Of all the very significant challenges that we face in the world today, many of those issues appear to be almost insurmountable challenges. Population growth is not."
located at.....http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-10-30/world-population-hits-seven-billion/51007670/1
0
Comments
I read somewhere that in the year 2100 the world population is going to hit 15 billion.
I'm way back at 3.14 billion.
i'm not sure the humans can.
isn't it interesting that we don't deal with the obvious problem, but rather project it onto the earth.
the sun will still shine regardless of what it is shining on. well until it burns out.
Thanks!
Resources are running out. My argument isn't that people shouldn't have kids because they'll use all of our resources.
It's actually not much of an argument at all. My question is: We know we're running out of oil with very few alternatives. We know we're running out of fresh water and as optimistic as we want to be, the chances are that human extinction may well occur within the next 100 years, and we all know these this. Even if you don't believe it, the chances of it being true are there and undeniable. So why would you want kids?
Yes, biological urge for us to reproduce, but shouldn't we have some self control when it comes to something that ends us.
I was reading an article about this and it included topics of overpopulation. The comments section were flooded with mothers saying "I don't care about over population, my 4/5/6/7 (One woman said she had 11 kids) babies are the most important thing to me." This makes me wonder just how stupid these people are. If the chances of them living through WW3 and living miserable lives and dying horrible deaths are within a good chance, and you know this and then you keep squeezing them out, then I just think you're a stupid, ignorant douche.
With the present circumstances, isn't having a kid a bit like creating a beautiful painting, then using it for fire wood?
That means untold tons of "stuff" are being deposited behind bushes, trees, rocks, etc., etc......
No wonder it seems like we are knee deep in our own shit.......
Of course
With Metta
For example, in some "developed" countries (like the UK) there are high levels of obesity. The government has decided it would be good to encourage people to eat more healthily, so you have your 5-a day etc. Why can't they encourage people to have less babies? There are already some NGOs that speak about it, like this one encouraging people to "stop at two". Why can't it be an official policy?
And yes, many people would like to be able to choose when and how they die, while modern medicine would have them hooked up to life-supporting tubes for much longer than they would like. But this is entirely different topic.
i sometimes feel bad just because i have two cats and it's a struggle to make sure that i provide the both of them with the same amount of love so one doesn't feel slighted(i'm sure this part is in my head, lol). i can't imagine having a ton of children and dividing my attention fairly, to be honest... i even feel this way about my aunt who has a ton of animals... but i digress.
Of course the possibility of influenza or a nuclear war may solve the problem before then, but the sky is not falling just yet. Don't worry, nature will find a way, it always does.
That's my contribution. Keep your pants on.
Namaste