Discussion:
possible Earth population of 100 billion in 2120
(too old to reply)
Lynn McGuire
2021-02-24 22:07:38 UTC
Permalink
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).

https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/

Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?

Thanks,
Lynn
Jonathan
2021-02-24 22:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120. Most
of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
Thanks,
Lynn
The data is clear that where free market democracies thrive
population growth declines. The spread of freedom and
democracy worldwide is the primary solution to the
world's most pressing problems.

From population growth to climate change to social justice.

Thank God America just gave our dictator wannabe
who would turn American into just another Russia
the Big Boot.
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Dimensional Traveler
2021-02-24 23:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120. Most
of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
Thanks,
Lynn
That's only a fertility rate of what, around 10 to 12? Outlaw all birth
control, fertility drugs in the water supply, mandatory weekly orgies,
no problem.
--
I like living in the suburbs of Sanity. I can commute there when I need
to be serious or mature but otherwise I can do as I please.
Quadibloc
2021-02-25 00:38:07 UTC
Permalink
That's only a fertility rate of what, around 10 to 12? Outlaw all birth
control, fertility drugs in the water supply, mandatory weekly orgies,
no problem.
Nope. A per-annum population growth rate of 2%, caused by a fertility
rate of 2.5, will give you over 7x as many people in 100 years.

So a fertility rate of 2.75 will get you to 10x just fine. The magic of
compound interest!

John Savard
Quadibloc
2021-02-25 00:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
2120 is 100 years from now. When developed countries experience population growth,
it's usually at a rate like 2% per annum. Today's population was about 10 billion a few
years ago.

(1.02)^100 = 7.24.

That means that even with worldwide population growth matching that of the United
States in the early 1960s, you could get a population of 72 billion in 2120.

So a world-wide population growth rate of 2.5% per annum, if you include Third World
countries where people need children to support them in their old age... seems _far_
from implausible.

No "mandatory weekly orgies" required.

*However* that does not mean I find it... entirely free from implausibility. The population
can only grow to 100 billion... if enough soybeans can be grown, and enough flavored soy
can be manufactured, and enough of any other nutrients required for survival can also be
provided. Agriculture is a mature technology; it isn't growing according to Moore's Law.

So the problem is feeding everybody... *not* making enough babies.

John Savard
Juho Julkunen
2021-02-25 01:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
2120 is 100 years from now. When developed countries experience population growth,
it's usually at a rate like 2% per annum.
Uh, can we have some references here? What does "usually" mean?

Current OECD average is 0.54%.
Post by Quadibloc
Today's population was about 10 billion a few
years ago.
I assume you are going for very round figures here. Current world
population is about 7.8 billion.
Post by Quadibloc
(1.02)^100 = 7.24.
And (1.0105)^100 = 2.84.
Post by Quadibloc
That means that even with worldwide population growth matching that of the United
States in the early 1960s, you could get a population of 72 billion in 2120.
But why would you use worldwide population growth rate matching that of
the United States in the early 1960s? That is just about as fast as
world population has ever grown.

The current world population growth rate is 1.05%. It has been falling
since the peak of 2.2% in 1963, and is expected to keep falling.
Post by Quadibloc
So a world-wide population growth rate of 2.5% per annum, if you include Third World
countries where people need children to support them in their old age... seems _far_
from implausible.
On the other hand, it is faster than world population has ever grown,
and more than twice the current growth rate.
Post by Quadibloc
*However* that does not mean I find it... entirely free from implausibility. The population
can only grow to 100 billion... if enough soybeans can be grown, and enough flavored soy
can be manufactured, and enough of any other nutrients required for survival can also be
provided. Agriculture is a mature technology; it isn't growing according to Moore's Law.
We use 70% of our arable land for growing animal feed, and we also grow
all sorts of luxury products that have no place in a brave new world of
100 billion people. If we went all in on soybeans we could multiply the
calorie productions even without technological improvements. And while
food production isn't growing according to Moore's Law (which is
understandable, as we aren't growing transistors) it is still growing.
--
Juho Julkunen
James Nicoll
2021-02-25 16:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
2120 is 100 years from now. When developed countries experience population growth,
it's usually at a rate like 2% per annum.
Uh, can we have some references here? What does "usually" mean?
It means Savard is a living example of Dunning Kruger.
Post by Juho Julkunen
Current OECD average is 0.54%.
Post by Quadibloc
Today's population was about 10 billion a few
years ago.
I assume you are going for very round figures here.
A more reasonable interpretation that Savard is pulling nonsense out
of his ass again and that engaging with him is a waste of your time.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Juho Julkunen
2021-02-26 04:32:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
A more reasonable interpretation that Savard is pulling nonsense out
of his ass again and that engaging with him is a waste of your time.
I assure you I only indulge recreationally, and in moderation.
--
Juho Julkunen
Dimensional Traveler
2021-02-26 06:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by James Nicoll
A more reasonable interpretation that Savard is pulling nonsense out
of his ass again and that engaging with him is a waste of your time.
I assure you I only indulge recreationally, and in moderation.
You know how second hand smoke can kill? Second hand stupidity is still
just as dangerous to other people's sanity.
--
I like living in the suburbs of Sanity. I can commute there when I need
to be serious or mature but otherwise I can do as I please.
J. Clarke
2021-02-26 14:04:26 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 22:55:03 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by James Nicoll
A more reasonable interpretation that Savard is pulling nonsense out
of his ass again and that engaging with him is a waste of your time.
I assure you I only indulge recreationally, and in moderation.
You know how second hand smoke can kill?
Under what circumstances does it kill? Not cause a minute increase in
the probability of contracting some disease thrity years from now, but
be the primary cause of death?
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second hand stupidity is still
just as dangerous to other people's sanity.
Paul S Person
2021-02-26 17:47:02 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:04:26 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 22:55:03 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by James Nicoll
A more reasonable interpretation that Savard is pulling nonsense out
of his ass again and that engaging with him is a waste of your time.
I assure you I only indulge recreationally, and in moderation.
You know how second hand smoke can kill?
Under what circumstances does it kill? Not cause a minute increase in
the probability of contracting some disease thrity years from now, but
be the primary cause of death?
Well, I suppose if there were /enough/ of it, you would suffocate.

Take an awful lot, though.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Quadibloc
2021-02-26 17:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 22:55:03 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
You know how second hand smoke can kill?
Under what circumstances does it kill? Not cause a minute increase in
the probability of contracting some disease thrity years from now, but
be the primary cause of death?
It's true that it is difficult for a particular exposure to second-hand smoke
to be _identifiable_ as the primary cause of death.

But if you die of cancer 30 years from now, that cancer had to have a
start. The first tumor would have to have resulted from one cell mutating.
The mutagen could have been a cosmic ray. Or it could have been a
carcinogen from second-hand smoke.

Thirty years later, it will be hard to tell. But the thing that set that first
cell from being a hard-working member of the body to a rogue cancer
cell *was* the primary cause of death.

John Savard
Alan Baker
2021-02-27 03:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 22:55:03 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by James Nicoll
A more reasonable interpretation that Savard is pulling nonsense out
of his ass again and that engaging with him is a waste of your time.
I assure you I only indulge recreationally, and in moderation.
You know how second hand smoke can kill?
Under what circumstances does it kill? Not cause a minute increase in
the probability of contracting some disease thrity years from now, but
be the primary cause of death?
So what's your limit?

If it doesn't kill you in... ...20 minutes?

Lynn McGuire
2021-02-25 03:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
2120 is 100 years from now. When developed countries experience population growth,
it's usually at a rate like 2% per annum. Today's population was about 10 billion a few
years ago.
(1.02)^100 = 7.24.
That means that even with worldwide population growth matching that of the United
States in the early 1960s, you could get a population of 72 billion in 2120.
So a world-wide population growth rate of 2.5% per annum, if you include Third World
countries where people need children to support them in their old age... seems _far_
from implausible.
No "mandatory weekly orgies" required.
*However* that does not mean I find it... entirely free from implausibility. The population
can only grow to 100 billion... if enough soybeans can be grown, and enough flavored soy
can be manufactured, and enough of any other nutrients required for survival can also be
provided. Agriculture is a mature technology; it isn't growing according to Moore's Law.
So the problem is feeding everybody... *not* making enough babies.
John Savard
So the current population of Earth is 7.8 billion. Using planetary
growth factor of 2.6% is (1.026)^100 * 7.8e9 = 101,585,256,208 people.

Wow. That is a lot of people. And a lot of flavored soy.

Lynn
Robert Carnegie
2021-02-25 11:38:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
2120 is 100 years from now. When developed countries experience population growth,
it's usually at a rate like 2% per annum. Today's population was about 10 billion a few
years ago.
(1.02)^100 = 7.24.
That means that even with worldwide population growth matching that of the United
States in the early 1960s, you could get a population of 72 billion in 2120.
So a world-wide population growth rate of 2.5% per annum, if you include Third World
countries where people need children to support them in their old age... seems _far_
from implausible.
No "mandatory weekly orgies" required.
*However* that does not mean I find it... entirely free from implausibility. The population
can only grow to 100 billion... if enough soybeans can be grown, and enough flavored soy
can be manufactured, and enough of any other nutrients required for survival can also be
provided. Agriculture is a mature technology; it isn't growing according to Moore's Law.
So the problem is feeding everybody... *not* making enough babies.
John Savard
So the current population of Earth is 7.8 billion. Using planetary
growth factor of 2.6% is (1.026)^100 * 7.8e9 = 101,585,256,208 people.
Wow. That is a lot of people. And a lot of flavored soy.
Is anything else alive on Earth outside zoos, except
for the people and the soy? And we only have the
author's word for it that it is soy.

And then we discovered space dinosaurs... In this
story, which side should we be on?

<https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/The_Problem_with_Popplers>

Spoilers - <https://thelostfleet.fandom.com/wiki/Kick>
Michael F. Stemper
2021-02-26 19:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
So the current population of Earth is 7.8 billion. Using planetary
growth factor of 2.6% is (1.026)^100 * 7.8e9 = 101,585,256,208 people.
Wow. That is a lot of people. And a lot of flavored soy.
Is anything else alive on Earth outside zoos, except
for the people and the soy? And we only have the
author's word for it that it is soy.
The ObSFW for this idea is:
<http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?46105>
--
Michael F. Stemper
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Robert Carnegie
2021-02-26 19:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Robert Carnegie
So the current population of Earth is 7.8 billion. Using planetary
growth factor of 2.6% is (1.026)^100 * 7.8e9 = 101,585,256,208 people.
Wow. That is a lot of people. And a lot of flavored soy.
Is anything else alive on Earth outside zoos, except
for the people and the soy? And we only have the
author's word for it that it is soy.
<http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?46105>
I did think of that one, though I didn't remember the title.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2430_A.D.>
As I say, it is "that one". Isaac Asimov "calculated that
at the then-current rate of human population growth,
doubling every thirty-five years, that would be the year
when the world's animal biomass would consist entirely
of human beings. Asimov wrote the story on April 26, 1970,
but it was rejected as 'Think' had actually wanted a story
that refuted the quotation.[*] ("Well, they never said so,"
Asimov remarked later.) Asimov wrote a second story that
did refute the quotation" - later that afternoon, I suppose. ;-)

I'm not clear what H. G. Wells's Martians eat when
people aren't available, but another earlier case is when
_Skylark Three_ obtains supplies at a planet which
synthesises matter, including food:
<https://www.gutenberg.org/files/21051/21051-h/21051-h.htm>

"quarter after quarter of fresh meat going into the freezer
room from a planet upon which no animal other than man
had existed for many thousands of years."

At least I assume it's synthesised! :-)

[*] J. N. Priestley, _Thoughts in the Wilderness_ (1957) [**]:
"Between midnight and dawn, when sleep will not come
and all the old wounds begin to ache, I often have a
nightmare vision of a future world in which there are billions
of people, all numbered and registered, with not a gleam of
genius anywhere, not an original mind, a rich personality, on
the whole packed globe."

[**] <https://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~b93021/nce/new_no4_Lesson_10.html>

I'm not clear what Priestley is unhappy about, there.
In the [**] quoted longer passage, he seems to be complaining
about governors who are only competent administrators.
But we see from time to time what happens when people
in charge are not.

Then again, the competent administrators in _Brave New World_
come to mind.
Scott Lurndal
2021-02-26 23:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Robert Carnegie
So the current population of Earth is 7.8 billion. Using planetary
growth factor of 2.6% is (1.026)^100 * 7.8e9 = 101,585,256,208 people.
Wow. That is a lot of people. And a lot of flavored soy.
Is anything else alive on Earth outside zoos, except
for the people and the soy? And we only have the
author's word for it that it is soy.
<http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?46105>
There was also the 1969 song _In the Year 2525_.

In the year 2525
If man is still alive
If woman can survive
They may find


...

Now it's been 10, 000 years
Man has cried a billion tears
For what he never knew
Now man's reign is through
But through eternal night
The twinkling of starlight
So very far away
Maybe it's only yesterday

Zager & Evans.
Titus G
2021-02-27 02:11:46 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Michael F. Stemper
<http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?46105>
There was also the 1969 song _In the Year 2525_.
In the year 2525
If man is still alive
If woman can survive
They may find
...
Now it's been 10, 000 years
Man has cried a billion tears
For what he never knew
Now man's reign is through
But through eternal night
The twinkling of starlight
So very far away
Maybe it's only yesterday
Zager & Evans.
I hadn't heard that for decades and had remembered the tune but none of
the words. I listened again on YouTube and read the lyrics which were
all partly prophetic as well as very morbid and extremely pessimistic.

"In the year 9595
I'm kinda wonderin' if man is gonna be alive
He's taken everything this old earth can give
And he ain't put back nothing Woe Woe"
Jonathan
2021-02-25 16:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
2120 is 100 years from now.
Predicting a century in advance?

Show me who in 1890 predicted the Internet?


Our science can only predict simple systems, naturally
evolving systems are complex, they are /open/ systems
that in principle can't be predicted beyond that
of weather like time frames.

In addition naturally evolving systems experience
change not incrementally, but catastrophically
like an earthquake, where the 'landscape' becomes
almost unrecognizable.





When developed countries experience population growth,
Post by Quadibloc
it's usually at a rate like 2% per annum. Today's population was about 10 billion a few
years ago.
(1.02)^100 = 7.24.
That means that even with worldwide population growth matching that of the United
States in the early 1960s, you could get a population of 72 billion in 2120.
So a world-wide population growth rate of 2.5% per annum, if you include Third World
countries where people need children to support them in their old age... seems _far_
from implausible.
No "mandatory weekly orgies" required.
*However* that does not mean I find it... entirely free from implausibility. The population
can only grow to 100 billion... if enough soybeans can be grown, and enough flavored soy
can be manufactured, and enough of any other nutrients required for survival can also be
provided. Agriculture is a mature technology; it isn't growing according to Moore's Law.
So the problem is feeding everybody... *not* making enough babies.
John Savard
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Michael F. Stemper
2021-02-25 20:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
2120 is 100 years from now. When developed countries experience population growth,
it's usually at a rate like 2% per annum. Today's population was about 10 billion a few
years ago.
WTF? What does it mean to say what today's population was a few years
ago? Is this related to "The fluid sheep flies under the pointed sky"?
(ObSFW: name story, or at least author)

According to: <https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/>, today's
population is about 7.85 billion today.
--
Michael F. Stemper
If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much
more like prunes than rhubarb does.
pete...@gmail.com
2021-02-25 22:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
2120 is 100 years from now. When developed countries experience population growth,
it's usually at a rate like 2% per annum. Today's population was about 10 billion a few
years ago.
WTF? What does it mean to say what today's population was a few years
ago? Is this related to "The fluid sheep flies under the pointed sky"?
(ObSFW: name story, or at least author)
According to: <https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/>, today's
population is about 7.85 billion today.
Plus, no developed nation has had a growth rate equal or greater than 2%
for over a decade. To try to generalize something like this over a century
Is a fools errand, the rates are changing too rapidly.

All of this is easily checkable. Quaddie should know better.

Pt
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2021-02-26 01:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
All of this is easily checkable. Quaddie should know better.
Anyone with any sense certainly should, but I think you're expecting
too much of Mr. Savard.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Tom Derringer & the Steam-Powered Saurians.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
Quadibloc
2021-02-26 03:03:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Plus, no developed nation has had a growth rate equal or greater than 2%
for over a decade.
Is that "no developed nation has ever sustained a growth rate equal or greater
than 2% for more than 10 years in a row", which, if true, would be a surprise to
me, or is it "no developed nation has had a growth rate equal or greater than
2% since 2011 or earlier", which is not surprising to me at all?

I remember that in the 1960s, with a fertility rate of 2.5, the population was
growing at a rate of 2%. So it did not seem to me that a population growth
rate of 2% - even if unlikely without a change to current conditions - was at
all fundamentally implausible. Something that was the norm - even over fifty
years ago - isn't something that can't happen.

John Savard
pete...@gmail.com
2021-02-26 03:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by ***@gmail.com
Plus, no developed nation has had a growth rate equal or greater than 2%
for over a decade.
Is that "no developed nation has ever sustained a growth rate equal or greater
than 2% for more than 10 years in a row", which, if true, would be a surprise to
me, or is it "no developed nation has had a growth rate equal or greater than
2% since 2011 or earlier", which is not surprising to me at all?
I remember that in the 1960s, with a fertility rate of 2.5, the population was
growing at a rate of 2%. So it did not seem to me that a population growth
rate of 2% - even if unlikely without a change to current conditions - was at
all fundamentally implausible. Something that was the norm - even over fifty
years ago - isn't something that can't happen.
Examine the data yourself, as you should have done earlier.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate

Pt
Quadibloc
2021-02-26 17:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Examine the data yourself, as you should have done earlier.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate
No doubt immigration explains Luxembourg's high growth rate.

John Savard
pete...@gmail.com
2021-02-26 19:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by ***@gmail.com
Examine the data yourself, as you should have done earlier.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate
No doubt immigration explains Luxembourg's high growth rate.
...and there you go again, guessing when you could Look Stuff Up.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Luxembourg

This time, you're imitating a blind pig:
47% of the population are non-Luxembourgers
Juho Julkunen
2021-02-26 04:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Quadibloc
2120 is 100 years from now. When developed countries experience population growth,
it's usually at a rate like 2% per annum. Today's population was about 10 billion a few
years ago.
WTF? What does it mean to say what today's population was a few years
ago?
The most likely explanation is that he lost his way halfway through
that sentence, but he might be trying to say that 2021 population was
expected to be 10 billion a few years ago. Which might be true for
sufficiently large values of "few", though irrelevant.

What do you make of the preceding sentence? The growth rate of a
developed country at any time is either nonpositive or ~2% per year?
--
Juho Julkunen
Dimensional Traveler
2021-02-26 06:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Quadibloc
2120 is 100 years from now. When developed countries experience population growth,
it's usually at a rate like 2% per annum. Today's population was about 10 billion a few
years ago.
WTF? What does it mean to say what today's population was a few years
ago?
The most likely explanation is that he lost his way halfway through
that sentence, but he might be trying to say that 2021 population was
expected to be 10 billion a few years ago. Which might be true for
sufficiently large values of "few", though irrelevant.
What do you make of the preceding sentence? The growth rate of a
developed country at any time is either nonpositive or ~2% per year?
I make it to be an utterance from someone I killfiled for being too
stupid to know how to breathe.
--
I like living in the suburbs of Sanity. I can commute there when I need
to be serious or mature but otherwise I can do as I please.
Juho Julkunen
2021-02-25 01:38:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
No.
--
Juho Julkunen
pete...@gmail.com
2021-02-25 03:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
Thanks,
Lynn
Overpopulation stories are more a thing of the 60s and 70s. 'Make room, Make room', 7 billion, 'The world inside' 75 billion, 'A torrent of faces' several trillion, etc.

To write an over pop story in 2020 is a little weird.

Pt
Lynn McGuire
2021-02-25 03:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
Thanks,
Lynn
Overpopulation stories are more a thing of the 60s and 70s. 'Make room, Make room', 7 billion, 'The world inside' 75 billion, 'A torrent of faces' several trillion, etc.
To write an over pop story in 2020 is a little weird.
Pt
He also has FTL space drives and a race of warm blooded dynosaurs 20
meters tall trying to exterminate the human race on Earth and all of the
colonies. It all works and is extremely popular.

Lynn
-dsr-
2021-02-26 17:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
Overpopulation stories are more a thing of the 60s and 70s. 'Make room, Make room', 7 billion, 'The world inside' 75 billion, 'A torrent of faces' several trillion, etc.
To write an over pop story in 2020 is a little weird.
He also has FTL space drives and a race of warm blooded dynosaurs 20
meters tall trying to exterminate the human race on Earth and all of the
colonies. It all works and is extremely popular.
But it's nowhere near as good as his current series-in-progress, The Palladium
Wars.

It's similar to Joel Shepherd's Cassandra Kresnov series: humans fighting
each other with slightly differing tech levels, but not wanting to exterminate
each other.

-dsr-
Lynn McGuire
2021-02-26 19:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by -dsr-
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
Overpopulation stories are more a thing of the 60s and 70s. 'Make room, Make room', 7 billion, 'The world inside' 75 billion, 'A torrent of faces' several trillion, etc.
To write an over pop story in 2020 is a little weird.
He also has FTL space drives and a race of warm blooded dynosaurs 20
meters tall trying to exterminate the human race on Earth and all of the
colonies. It all works and is extremely popular.
But it's nowhere near as good as his current series-in-progress, The Palladium
Wars.
It's similar to Joel Shepherd's Cassandra Kresnov series: humans fighting
each other with slightly differing tech levels, but not wanting to exterminate
each other.
-dsr-
I looked at the marketing blurb and said "bleh".

Lynn
Titus G
2021-02-25 03:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
Thanks,
Lynn
Overpopulation stories are more a thing of the 60s and 70s. 'Make room, Make room', 7 billion, 'The world inside' 75 billion, 'A torrent of faces' several trillion, etc.
To write an over pop story in 2020 is a little weird.
Pt
Orders of Battle is apparently available free online. Lynn's
preoccupation with military and post apocalyptic fiction is more than a
little weird.
The possibility of 100 billion is incomprehensible to my tiny brain.
Standing room only. An horrific dystopia?
Quadibloc
2021-02-25 05:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Standing room only. An horrific dystopia?
Horrific dystopia, yes.
Standing room only, no.
Let us say that one person, standing up, without room to sit down, consumes
one square yard of space. That's actually pretty generous.
There are 1,760 yards in a mile, so a square mile holds 3,097,600 square yards.
The area of Texas is 268,596 square miles.
So it would take a world population of 832 billion, in this rough estimate, to
be "standing room only" even in just the state of Texas.

John Savard
Robert Carnegie
2021-02-25 11:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Titus G
Standing room only. An horrific dystopia?
Horrific dystopia, yes.
Standing room only, no.
Let us say that one person, standing up, without room to sit down, consumes
one square yard of space. That's actually pretty generous.
There are 1,760 yards in a mile, so a square mile holds 3,097,600 square yards.
The area of Texas is 268,596 square miles.
So it would take a world population of 832 billion, in this rough estimate, to
be "standing room only" even in just the state of Texas.
They ate all the chairs. :-)
Juho Julkunen
2021-02-25 15:32:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
The possibility of 100 billion is incomprehensible to my tiny brain.
Standing room only. An horrific dystopia?
Don't feel too bad about it. 7 billion was incomprehensible to Harry
Harrison's non-tiny brain, a horrific, standing room only dystopia. Can
you even picture how crowded and resource-starved United States would
be if it had 344 million people?
--
Juho Julkunen
James Nicoll
2021-02-25 16:06:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
Thanks,
Lynn
Overpopulation stories are more a thing of the 60s and 70s. 'Make room, Make
room', 7 billion, 'The world inside' 75 billion, 'A torrent of faces' several
trillion, etc.
To write an over pop story in 2020 is a little weird.
Ben Bova was still writing them as of the early aughts. The Return has
a subplot about secretly capping people's reproductive abilities for their
own good. Titan's plot is driven in part by the assumption all women want
loads and loads and loads of kids.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
John Halpenny
2021-02-25 16:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
Thanks,
Lynn
Overpopulation stories are more a thing of the 60s and 70s. 'Make room, Make
room', 7 billion, 'The world inside' 75 billion, 'A torrent of faces' several
trillion, etc.
To write an over pop story in 2020 is a little weird.
Ben Bova was still writing them as of the early aughts. The Return has
a subplot about secretly capping people's reproductive abilities for their
own good. Titan's plot is driven in part by the assumption all women want
loads and loads and loads of kids.
--
The population of Quebec was somewhere around 60 thousand in 1760 and 6 million in 1960, so an increase by a factor of 10 each century. This was not due to immigration, but due to a lot of families with 10 to 15 kids each. Such a growth is certainly possible.

John
James Nicoll
2021-02-25 17:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Halpenny
Post by James Nicoll
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
Thanks,
Lynn
Overpopulation stories are more a thing of the 60s and 70s. 'Make room, Make
room', 7 billion, 'The world inside' 75 billion, 'A torrent of faces' several
trillion, etc.
To write an over pop story in 2020 is a little weird.
Ben Bova was still writing them as of the early aughts. The Return has
a subplot about secretly capping people's reproductive abilities for their
own good. Titan's plot is driven in part by the assumption all women want
loads and loads and loads of kids.
--
The population of Quebec was somewhere around 60 thousand in 1760 and 6
million in 1960, so an increase by a factor of 10 each century. This was not
due to immigration, but due to a lot of families with 10 to 15 kids each.
Such a growth is certainly possible.
It turns out there is a difference between "what people could do" and "what
people are actually doing." For example, it's _possible_ for the Quebecois to
have so many babies that a little math suggests they will form a large ball
composed entirely of human flesh expanding at near light speed. What they
are actually doing is having babies at too low a rate to compensate for
the death rate. Similarly, the trend on Earth is for total fertility
rates to decline, something that was noted almost a century ago.

But persons of a certain age imprinted on a short period during with
births greatly outnumbered deaths, and they have not yet incorporated
the demographic transition into their world views.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Jack Bohn
2021-02-25 17:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by ***@gmail.com
Overpopulation stories are more a thing of the 60s and 70s. 'Make room, Make
room', 7 billion, 'The world inside' 75 billion, 'A torrent of faces' several
trillion, etc.
To write an over pop story in 2020 is a little weird.
Ben Bova was still writing them as of the early aughts. The Return has
a subplot about secretly capping people's reproductive abilities for their
own good. Titan's plot is driven in part by the assumption all women want
loads and loads and loads of kids.
As examples agreeing with the "a little weird" part of the post?
--
-Jack
James Nicoll
2021-02-25 17:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by James Nicoll
Post by ***@gmail.com
Overpopulation stories are more a thing of the 60s and 70s. 'Make room, Make
room', 7 billion, 'The world inside' 75 billion, 'A torrent of faces' several
trillion, etc.
To write an over pop story in 2020 is a little weird.
Ben Bova was still writing them as of the early aughts. The Return has
a subplot about secretly capping people's reproductive abilities for their
own good. Titan's plot is driven in part by the assumption all women want
loads and loads and loads of kids.
As examples agreeing with the "a little weird" part of the post?
"Hopeless outdated", maybe. "Worth scutinizing to see if the underlying
motivation is racism", as well. Generally popbomb types are much more
concerned that Those People are having kids than they are about the habits
of their own kind.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Paul S Person
2021-02-25 17:37:39 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 16:07:38 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am currently reading "Orders of Battle (Frontlines)" by Marko Kloos.
He posits that the population of Earth will be 100 billion in 2120.
Most of the population eats flavored soy and lives in huge PRCs (public
residential complexes).
https://www.amazon.com/Orders-Battle-Frontlines-Marko-Kloos/dp/1542019583/
Am I the only person who finds this implausible ?
Sounds like the path to the world of the Urban Monads to me.

Or possibly to that of Judge Dredd ...
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Loading...