[debate] population controls and the Paul Holdren controversy

[chris at blask.org]

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

 
> Not necessarily; first, lifespan will definitely stability unless
> anything super-new is invented in medicine (some say yes [singularity,
> whatever], I say 'not likely'). Second, Stratfor's claim is
> not in lifespan but in decreased birth rates EVEN IN what we now
> call developing world.

Declining birth rates follows the development of the "developing world" but there is nothing definite whatsoever about lifespans stabilizing.  It could be argued that it will take longer than a century or two to finish research into human biology, but I can't see any argument that could see it taking more than three (frankly 200 years is hard to imagine, but what the heck).
 
> And, BTW, I am NOT talking XXIV, more like later XXI.

> All bets are off for XXIV century; both today's solutions
> (e.g. medicine) BUT ALSO today's problems..

It's not exactly long term planning for a global scale.  A single human lifespan covers more than the balance of this century and nothing is going to suddenly pop up in the next that changes the basic dynamic (short of Magic Limitless Teleportation, which I'm betting we can rule out).

The issues raised by population are not going to change much whether we deal with them sooner or later, but for planning purposes it is best to have a probable range of forecasts in mind.  We will likely need significant ingenuity to support the 15-20B that some reading this could survive to see, and if we assume somehow that growth with stop at that point and it doesn't that could be problematic.

-chris