Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!mtxinu!unisoft!fai!sequent!crg5!szabo
From: szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Human pop. stats.
Message-ID: <21531@crg5.UUCP>
Date: 11 Apr 91 08:37:19 GMT
References: <1991Apr6.205855.3131@desire.wright.edu>
Reply-To: szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo)
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc
Lines: 55

In article <1991Apr6.205855.3131@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>[Population Data Sheet]
>It is part of the curiculum in an upper level undergrad class
>I am taking on Population Demographics....  
>As for the projection of pop. growth that was discussed earlier.  There are
>three different scenarios in my sheet.  All of them show very little 
>difference until after the year 2000.  At that point the high projects
>a total pop of 14.2 by 2100, the middle a total pop. of 10.2 in 2100
>and the low a pop. of 7.5 in 2100.  These are from United Nations 
>projections.

What processes and variables are used to create the three scenarios?
What are the _rates_ of growth predicted for 2100 and why?
The World Bank figures show ZPG in 2050 at 10.5 billion +/- 500 million,
by fitting the curve for changes in the rate of growth, not just projecting
the latest rate of growth linearly.  It did not project beyond this.  

My thesis is that beyond the ZPG point population growth will not "level 
out", it will become negative, reaching an equilibrium of -50%/generation.
This is based on the statistics of populations with the best access to
birth control -- 2.0 or less births per woman per lifetime, and c. 50% 
of pregnancies unplanned.  The negative population growth will happen 
sooner for some cultures than others, and is indeed starting to occur in 
some societies today.  So far, we have come up with _no_ solutions to this 
problem that are not politically or morally unacceptable.   These problems 
need to be looked at more closely.  I am soliciting ideas, especially from 
those who have the largest stakes in child bearing and raising.

The Japanese baby dearth has been mentioned, and one solution
proposed is encouraging immigration.  This is politically anemetha
to the Japanese, and over the long run it is morally questionable for
reasons of cultural survival.  In the U.S., where we mix and match 
several different cultures, it is perhaps easy to lose site of those 
cultures with unique sets of languages, traditions and values, and it 
may be that we forget the need to keep these traditions and values alive 
by perpetuating one's own culture instead of encouraging the growth and 
influx of others at the expense of one's own.   Since we have lived in
an expanding culture, with no need to concern ourselves about survival,
our political instincts clash with the reality some cultures are starting 
to face.  In the case of Japan, it may be a long time before the culture
is threatened (depending on how much decline impact is considered
acceptable -- a highly charged topic, I'm afraid).  In the case of 
Hungary, dropping at 1%/year, it may not be so long.  In the case of 
Amazonian tribes, unique sets of languages, traditions, and values are 
breathing their last gasp right now.   All societies, sooner or later, 
will need to come to grips with the problems of population decline and 
cultural survival.


-- 
Nick Szabo			szabo@sequent.com
"If you want oil, drill lots of wells" -- J. Paul Getty
The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any
organization I may be affiliated with.