Over 100 countries are counting their population in 2020. There will be results coming in over the next few months.
Many African countries have not had a census for 10-20 years.
Various high population growth rate countries could have surprising adjustments.
India will not complete its census until February, 2021.
There is now more tracking of population counts on an ongoing basis in developed countries. Africa and parts of Asia are still poorly tracked.
The current world real-time population count is about 7.8 billion people. World population is increasing by about 81 million people each year. If there was a 1% undercount revealed in the 2020-2021 census counts then the World population could pass 8 billion late in 2021.
SOURCES- UN Statistics
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Not a warmonger. And your hatred is what is toxic. Animals grown on farms have better lives than in the wild, in general. In the wild, they would all be eventually eaten and their deaths will be very traumatic. We make their deaths sudden, mostly painless and short. You improperly evaluate their lives in human terms. That is like saying their lives are awful because they eat hay and you imagine yourself eating hay. Ack! So, obviously, therefore their lives must be dreadful. No shelter from the rain, no blankies at night…just dreadful. Empathy is defective, when you don’t have the same values, because you are a different species. They like to be together, though we would call that crowded. They don’t mind the fence that keeps the wolves away. They enjoy the food we give them. When young, they play, they have fun.
Nutrition during pregnancy can make a bigger difference in IQ than genetics…provided the genetics are normal rather than chromosomal abnormalities and other severe mutations. “University of Alberta’s Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry found when pregnant women consumed six or seven servings of fruit or 100-percent fruit juice a day, their babies scored six or seven more IQ points by age one.” https://www.thebump.com/news/fruit-during-pregnancy-raises-baby-iq
“Maternal Choline Supplementation During the Third Trimester of Pregnancy Improves Infant Information Processing Speed” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29217669/
“Our findings provide evidence that mild to moderate iodine deficiency during fetal development, even with the lack of maternal thyroid insufficiency, may result in cognitive impairment later in life, with a seemingly greater impact on verbal abilities.” https://www.healio.com/news/endocrinology/20151208/maternal-iodine-status-may-affect-childhood-iq
And air, food and water quality matter: “The children of mothers who breathed dirtier air and carried less folate in their bodies scored about seven points lower on IQ tests than children in the top cohort.” https://www.kqed.org/science/1946243/pregnant-moms-who-breathe-dirty-air-have-children-with-lower-iqs-study-finds
And yet wit all this recycling, pollution per capita continues to increase… Giving food for belly doesent make a person more intelligent. It is the food for thought that lacks. And it lacks mostly were we think we have the most of it.
In the 70′ the first calculations about climate change emissions led to the conclusion that the world could sustain at max 3 billion people with the current (of the ’70) emissions per capita. we are at 8 billion people that would like to have the same lifestyle of USA american people. Which will be a tragedy because it is the most consumistic, polluting and damaging lyfestyile of the entire world. The poorer the people, the higher the population increase. Basically poor countries should be able to give their citizens way better conditions. Population increase would drastically reduce. But at the same time these conditions should be achieved without an increase of the emissions per capita.
There is something wrong with your brain.
That why we disagree with you. 😛
Or by mining or otherwise getting the nutrients aka artificial fertilizers. I think it is perfectly reasonable to use these. The only issue I have is that all the minerals needed should be added,
not just enough to grow the plant and have it look fine. A food plant should be taking up as much nutrition as it is capable. Organic is not that.
A large complaint I have about organic and all farming in the US is that we allow plants to be grown where there are heavy metals in the soil, even plants that readily absorb these. They get a pass if it is naturally there, or appears that way. But your body and your baby’s or toddler’s body does not know the difference. Lead is lead.
Another issue I have is the speed and condition of the produce and meat on the shelf. They think it is enough to get it sold before it rots. That is not good enough in my book. There should be a genuine effort to get things to the stores as quickly as possible. Harvest dates should be on all of it.
Another issue is that to meet the standard I am after, the farm machinery should be natural gas or electric. We don’t need diesel soot all over everything.
And we need transparency at the market. Produce should have a card that says what farm it came from and when, whether the trucks were refrigerated or not, whether the warehouse it was delivered to is refrigerated or not, and other pertinent details.
Maybe I should elaborate on my “organic” designation issues. Generic modification can improve the nutrition of the food.
Golden rice is an example. Where the rice makes beta-carotene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
Some other changes do not harm or hurt, but make the product better like seedless fruit. These benifitial or benign genetically engineered crops should not be shunned. But If something is engineered to manufacture toxins to kill insects, fungus, or weeds…I would say that is dubious at best, and likely would not meet my standard. Modifications that damage nutrition by reducing vitamins or make the plant have more saturated fat or less omega 3, I would reject.
Artificial fertilizers I am more open to. Ideally, we should be recycling nutrients, but if everything went organic, we could only use restaurant/food processing plant garbage, plant residuals, and
manure. Without recovering the minerals in human waste, and from spoilage, trimmings and such that went down the drain, the soil would
degrade over time. We can’t use human waste because we have too many toxins in there. Lead, other heavy metals, stuff in drugs, and other
random chemicals put down the drain. Water can be recovered but that is about it. So the difference in what we can return from what was
removed needs to be made up from either sea weed (we pump our nutrients out into the ocean, so taking some back as sea weed makes sense…though we should boost seaweed production by adding iron),
Yes, actually. Cleaner air and water does help the animals as well. DDT and some other toxins have been banned or voluntarily withdrawn. A long way to go with the herbicides, and insecticides. But many people are buying organic. I don’t like the designation, as I think it is too restrictive in some regards and too lenient in others. The priorities should be human
health and environmental health without eliminating things categorically. Everything should be weighed by its own
merits…scientifically.
Farm animal health and conditions have improved as people have asked for “free range” and “grass fed” and such. We need to give cows sea weed. They like it, it is good for their
health, and great for the environment. It can cut the methane emissions by more than 90%.
Oh, Luca, everone can read and understand what you write. Most just disagree with you.
I have been hearing this population explosions crap for decades. But the more people there are the more minds there are that can find solutions and implement them. The less there are the longer it will take.
Americans, Asians, and Europeans are just the first to get what everyone wants (though most are not really there either yet), and there are many people working hard to improve our way of life. Water and air has been improved dramaticly. Energy is getting cleaner. Land more productive. Resources recycled. Cardboard, steel, aluminum, other metals, glass to various degrees. Even concrete is recycled. It may not be turned into new cement, but it is broken up and put in concrete.
Yes, there is a lot to solve. We are going to need robots which can quickly sort all the trash and garbage. That will be terrific for recycling. We also need to process sewege and recover the minerals to restore to the soil. Plastics can be recycled, but there are still many challenges there. I would like to see a return to glass but not the heavy variety but very thin excedingly strong glass. As long as it can fall onto concrete from 8 feet without breaking, I think it can replace plastic. And recycling that would be easy by comparisen. There are 10,000 other steps, but I think we are heading there. The more people there are, the more likely they will create the solutions. We should try to help them be more innovative. We need to insure all the pregnant mothers are given optimal nutrition so children will be very bright and capable .
If you don’t value humans, why all the derision about the US fighting other armies?
I am not into war, mostly because there haven’t been any compelling reasons for any of the recent conflicts, and I value human life.
And I don’t believe that government should protect assets of corporations that invest overseas. That is their gamble. We glorify the risk taking entrepreneur, but then we squander billions to protect them from their errors. Conquest for money is an ugly business.
We might have been a bit compelled in the first gulf war but only because of our own stupidity not to convert many of the cars to natural gas after fuel issues in the 1970s, and very little effort was taken to make our vehicles efficient either.
Even that, I don’t know. We probably could have said and done nothing after Saddam invaded Kuwait, and continued to do business.
We did do a reasonable job reducing the use of oil in electrical generation. One of the big reasons we were so vulnerable was that we had greatly expanded our use of oil in electrical generation in the 1960’s and 1970’s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Electricity_by_type.png
Though, if we had built more nuclear, we would have had a lot of natural gas for vehicles which could have dramatically reduced our reliance on foreign oil. Nuclear by all rights should have pushed out coal, natural gas and oil for electrical generation.
I always tell folks such as yourself – you first. Take yourself out of the population pool.
Population isn’t centrally planned (in humane countries).
We are selectively breading for the inability to use condoms.
Death cultists who tell other people to stop having families should be found and locked up for being hostis humani generis.
We HAVE been reducing both poverty and growth-rates. But that’s likely to fall apart over the next few decades if Peter Zeihan is correct that a relatively peaceful world and safe global trade is an artificial construct that the US is about to let fall apart and that no one else will have the power to put back together, resulting in decades of conflict and collapse.
We’ve been running the world on inertia since 1990, but now we’ve got Dems who want to pay for a Green New Deal, and Trump populists who want to re-shore jobs and stop paying to police the world. Both sides will be easy to convince that we can and should shrink the military by withdrawing around the world, especially as we head into a recession.
I don’t think the political left or right understands the long term consequences of over population. The population explosion is mostly occurring among the world’s poorest communities. And you can’t solve the problem of global poverty and political unrest unless you significantly reduce population growth in the poorest regions of the world.
The more the merrier. We just need:
1.Good city planning,
2.Advances in food production especially tissue culture stuff, hydroponics/aeroponics, bacteria engineered to make food components, and chemically synthesized food components.
3.Clean electrical/transport power.
4.Water and nutrient recycling
5.End the exposure of the public to dangerous toxins.
6.And somehow we have to stop the hunters, lumberjacks and fishermen from taking too much from the wild. The more people there are, the more this needs controlled. And that also means international cooperation and concerted international pressure. That can be achieved much more easily if we can synthesize the materials sought, and grow the food sought and more cheaply than chancing getting caught would ever be worth.