What we have seen in the different projections of future global population is that Africa is the most influential and contentious. What happens in Africa now and in the coming decades will determine what size and structure the global population will have at the end of the century.18
It seems less certain what the future for Africa will look like; there is considerable disagreement between UN and WC-IIASA projections. Even the medium projections vary significantly between the two institutions: The UN projects a population of 4.5 billion while WC-IIASA projects a population of only 2.6 billion. This difference of 2 billion is just as large as the difference between the projection for the global population by the UN (11.2 billion in 2100) and WC-IIASA (8.9 billion in 2100). Whether the world population increases to more than 10 billion will be decided by the speed with which Africa develops – especially how quickly women get access to better education, women's opportunities within the job market, and how rapidly the improvements in child health continue.
It's really quite astounding. If the UN's predictions are accurate, Africa's population will soar to 4.5 billion, with the Sub-Saharan part alone accounting for 4 of that 4.5 billion. Which means tens or even hundreds of millions of migrants flooding Western nations, making the current crisis seem like a drizzle when compared with this storm looming off in the distance.
You would think this would be major news, discussed openly and often by the talking heads on cable news networks and given front page billing by major newspapers. Instead, you hear virtually nothing about it, unlike (for example) Peak Oil.
The population of Asia is at the same level today: between 4 and 4.5 billions, and while there is quite a lot of immigration relatively speaking, you don't see hundred of millions of immigrants. That's partly because the economy has soared at the same time as the population. And the same reasons who are slowing down Africa's population growth (rise of education) should increase its economic growth.
It's difficult to see now of course because Africa is more unstable and fragmented than East Asia. But a lot of countries in Subsaharian Africa are not worse off than China in the 1990s and have a promising gdp growth rate (not as big as China yet, though)
Cheao solar energy would allow for massive desalination.
The problem of most countries that people flee from is not lack of resources, but inadequate government. People flee to countries that are better governed and thus more prosperous.
The thing is we know how to contain pop growth and it does not have to be drastic like China's. India is trying to implement novel kinds of birth control[1] and in addition, we know educating women [and following into the workforce] helps bring down pop growth in a generation.
So we know the solution, whether the world or locals are willing to implement them are another question.
I don't think there is any way the world remains livable with 12 billion aspirational consumers.
Education and access to family planning. Access to economic opportunities that provide a compelling reason to wait to give birth to children until later in life than directly post-pubescence.
If Westerners were serious about staving off a mass of immigrants they'd work to improve the situations where the migrants originate. That would mean a cessation to mercantilism and colonialism and likely a decline in the quality of life but surely that's a small price to pay
Why do people STILL think it's an unsolved problem? The birthrate among the native born in the West and the Far East are almost universally below the replacement rate. Education and urbanization/development do it.
All it takes is one tiny subpopulation with more than 2 kids per woman, and you get exponential growth. Exponential growth conquers all. If you have a computer science background, think back to big-O notation. Having 4 kids per woman (thus 2 per person) is a growth rate that doubles the population every generation.
So, do the Amish exist? Yes they do. That alone ensures that growth will not stop. Even if everybody else decided to not reproduce, we'd be well above the current world population after a few centuries.
In 1950 60% of the world was illiterate, today it's less than 20.
Have a look at how fertility rates can drop when people get richer and governments allow some fertility control. In the Islamic Republic of Iran fertility rates dropped from about 6 per woman in 1980 to below replacement in 2005.
There are only 2 major societal problems in the world (1) how to produce a lot of energy for cheap without damaging the ecosystem (2) how to get people to sustainably value common good at least at par with individual good.
Given (1), a few thousand skyscraper farms are enough to support the food needs of our entire planets population. When I did the calculation, I was surprised how little it actually takes.
For (2), the simplistic pure capitalism and pure communism experiments have clearly failed but there are various "in-between" experiments running (northern Europe, Xi Jiping's China, Singapore etc) which seem to be heading to both individual and societal prosperity.
It's also likely Africa will grow a fair bit economically leading to less migrants and a reduced birthrate. Africa's a big place - you can fit a lot of people in.
...what this means is that Africa may become the center of world affairs in the 22nd century after they become rich and developed.
The West and the East will both be somewhat impoverished (relatively speaking, not in an absolute sense) by aging and shrinking workforces. They'll be desperate for workers from Africa.
What we have seen in the different projections of future global population is that Africa is the most influential and contentious. What happens in Africa now and in the coming decades will determine what size and structure the global population will have at the end of the century.18
It seems less certain what the future for Africa will look like; there is considerable disagreement between UN and WC-IIASA projections. Even the medium projections vary significantly between the two institutions: The UN projects a population of 4.5 billion while WC-IIASA projects a population of only 2.6 billion. This difference of 2 billion is just as large as the difference between the projection for the global population by the UN (11.2 billion in 2100) and WC-IIASA (8.9 billion in 2100). Whether the world population increases to more than 10 billion will be decided by the speed with which Africa develops – especially how quickly women get access to better education, women's opportunities within the job market, and how rapidly the improvements in child health continue.
It's really quite astounding. If the UN's predictions are accurate, Africa's population will soar to 4.5 billion, with the Sub-Saharan part alone accounting for 4 of that 4.5 billion. Which means tens or even hundreds of millions of migrants flooding Western nations, making the current crisis seem like a drizzle when compared with this storm looming off in the distance.
You would think this would be major news, discussed openly and often by the talking heads on cable news networks and given front page billing by major newspapers. Instead, you hear virtually nothing about it, unlike (for example) Peak Oil.
Though not as famous as other dystopian novels like 1984 or Brave New World, this might yet prove to be the most prophetic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_of_the_Saints