[debate] population controls and the Paul Holdren controversy

[chris at blask.org]

--- On Wed, 7/22/09, Anton Chuvakin <anton at chuvakin.org> wrote:

> I loved Stratfor's take on it in "The Next 100 Years"
> (http://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century/dp/038551705X)

> They basically say it will taper off with no issue in all
> countries over 21st century and that's all there is to it.

Not having read the book I have to assume that means something like: "Population will plateau and stabilize".  That kind of forecast only holds as long as lifespans stay stable, which is highly unlikely.  Just about the time population growth due to current reasons starts to flatten out at 15-20B somewhere near the end of this century, medicine will begin to crank up the life expectancy.  Actually lengthening human expectancy so that people are living to be 150 is of course is preceded by more and more people living to be 90 - which has it's own impact on population growth - and as the 22nd and 23rd centuries unfold active lifespans deep into the second (and third) centuries will become more normal.  Anyone who thinks average human biology will still include "natural" senescence into and beyond the 24th century is, I posit, massively underestimating human potential and our fear of death.

So, in the long term population will continue to increase into the uncharted future.  Off-planet emigration is unlikely to ever have a significant impact on that.  "Population controls" of any sort will simply have a delaying effect but will in the long term make no difference at all.  All of which lead to interesting sets of challenges, which I have very little doubt we will find fascinating ways to deal with.

Wish I could be around to see it all.

-chris