World Population in 2100 Mainly Impacted by Family Size in Africa

The 2019 revision of the World Population Prospects (WPP), the United Nations projected that the world’s population would grow from 7.7 billion in 2019 to reach 8.5 billion in 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050 and 10.9 billion in 2100. These figures are based on the “medium variant” projection, which assumes a decline in fertility for countries where large families are still prevalent.

In 2019, the total population of sub-Saharan Africa, at 1.07 billion, is roughly the same size as the combined populations of Europe and Northern America (1.11 billion in 2019). Despite similar population size, the 36 million births taking place in sub-Saharan Africa each year is three times greater than the 12 million average annual births in Europe and Northern America.

The charts show the annual deaths increasing to 90 million to 120 million in 2060-2100. This is where increases in longevity beyond the baseline UN assumptions could see substantial impact from any cheap and widespread radical life extension technology.

The broader impact of radical life extension occurs if most people received better medicine and lived far longer lives. This life extension would also have to not impact when people have children and how many they have. Life extension that delayed the timing of children has an offset in any potential population increase.

By 2050-2055, the 95 percent prediction intervals suggest a plausible range in the average annual number of births in sub-Saharan Africa from 43 to 62 million.

How early people have their children also has a large impact on future population.

If there was constant fertility then there would be 21 billion people in 2100.

SOURCES= UN
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

26 thoughts on “World Population in 2100 Mainly Impacted by Family Size in Africa”

  1. No one thinks there will be a population "adjustment" some time between now and 2100? Anywhere in the world?

    I'll make a brash prediction. A lot of people are going to starve in the next 10 years and by 2100 the population will be no where near 10 billion.

    Reply
  2. There are a few important in the gut, and some important on the skin, maybe in the ears to reduce infections. The rest? Freeloaders at best, in my opinion.
    Every few years scientists discover that another cancer is caused by a virus: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/infectious-agents/infections-that-can-lead-to-cancer/viruses.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncovirus
    And there is evidence that Cytomegalovirus wears down the immune system after decades of battle. Like HIV just slower, waiting until you are old to finally kill you, or rather set you up for something else to kill you. And it is extremely common; 91% of Americans over 80: https://www.medscape.com/answers/215702-99933/what-is-the-prevalence-of-cytomegalovirus-cmv-infection
    It is also the #1 cause of retardation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_cytomegalovirus_infection
    Gingivitis is a major contributor to heart disease and likely other diseases: https://www.pennmedicine.org/updates/blogs/heart-and-vascular-blog/2019/march/gum-disease-and-heart-disease
    Bactria are also opportunistic seizing on injuries: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6510207/

    Reply
  3. Comparable to industrialization in higher GNP societies (often also colonial conquerors) on 19th century?
    Improvements on infrastructure and education stabilize level of living conditions.

    Reply
  4. A couple of generations ago biologists would probably have said that a good move would be to get rid of all the bacteria that are living in our bodies.
    These days of course, we realize that that vast majority of them are somewhere between harmless to actively symbiotic with us. And getting rid of them would result in a dramatic decrease in health.
    I'd not be surprised if this turns out to also be true for (most of) the trillions of viruses in our bodies.

    Reply
  5. If we want to live a long time it means: 
    1.Clearing senescent cells
    2.Avoiding the creation/accumulation of crosslinks including especially AGEs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_glycation_end-product
    3.The minimization of exposure to toxins/allergens (to the person). Trans fats are a big no no, but there are may others: alcohol, tobacco, lead, other heavy metals, all sorts of chemicals.
    4.Elimination of pathogens within the body. Ridding the body of latent infections, and avoiding these in the first place. Very important to kill gingivitis.
    5.HIIT exercise. This recycles Mitochondria.
    6.Reasonable amounts of cardiovascular exercise. 3 hours a week maybe. Hard to determine optimum.
    7.A wide variety of Antioxidants. Not emphasized much anymore but they are important.
    8.Full nutrition but occasional fasting as well.

    This will not stop aging. We need new tech for that.
    Even the things I mentioned can be enhanced dramatically. We do very little for latent infections especially viral. We need more effective and selective senescent cell removal.
    If we can come up with a treatment that can eliminate Glucosepane, I think that will be huge as well. We need antivirals that can fully clear our systems of these buggers. We also need antibiotics that can fully eliminate bacteria that have protective layers that prevent most antibiotics from working. We also need measures which kill Staph quickly and completely.

    Reply
  6. Many of the hardest lives are the longest. We respond to things like lack of food, high physical activity, routine exposure to extreme temperatures, and such.
    If, taking it easy, worked, all the couch potatoes would be living long.

    The longest living American, Hester Ford (115 years, 189 days, currently), had 12 children.

    A lot of wishful thinking.

    I think chronic inflammation is mostly a result of senescent cells giving off toxins because their telomers have frayed, and the battle going on to kill them waged by the other cells. Though infection, injury, and toxins/allergens can also cause inflammation, of course. But I suspect much of the appearance of the immune system attacking healthy tissue is senescent cell provoked.
    Quieting the battle may not solve much. Those cells need to be eliminated.

    The DNA damage is not a slow accumulation through generations of cells, it is these blasted senescent cells with split ends. The telomere is like glue holding the DNA together. When they run out, and the cell is not killed, then the frayed DNA becomes very active making junk proteins and a big mess.

    Mitochondria can become damaged dividing many more times in a far more exposed environment as it is not protected in the nucleus. Age spots are millions of cells descended from a cell where the mitochondria was damaged and can't burn fuel cleanly.

    Reply
  7. And the cell division limit is between 50 and 60. That actually makes a whopping difference. 60 would be 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 vs 50 at 1,125,899,906,842,624. If 1,125,899,906,842,624 is enough to make 30 people, 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 is enough to make 30,909 people.
    The thinning of our skin is one manifestation of this limit. Skin "moisture" is also affected as the oils produced are released by division…not a particularly brilliant part of the engineering. The skin on children's hands easily holds onto things, older hands get more slick as a result.
    In identical twins, one should get one more division. Does that make a difference in their lives? Who knows?
    Here is an interesting test: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12664-x

    Reply
  8. In nature, we have children as long as we can. They had to produce a lot of children just to make up for all the early deaths by accidents or predation. And, of course, there is aging in the 30s and the 40s. If you are talking about deterioration that starts at around 25 where hearing begins its decline. I think we are at our mental peak between 27 and 30. Obviously, we can still learn, but the rate declines. Calculation speed, observation speed, reaction time all decline. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/AgeLists.asp
    Some things decline very early. Young children have better memories and have the ability to learn languages quickly and without an accent. 
    The telomere thing is a fact…like it or not. You did the math? I get 1,125,899,906,842,624 (50 div). That seems like a pretty big number to me. They say there are 37.3T cells in a human body. So 30x as many as you have at any given moment. Not all tissues need to be replaced often. Those that do, have a loophole. Red blood cells don't have true daughter cells. The DNA doesn't divide to make these blood cells, so the telomere does not shorten to make these, which is why they have that wonky dimple on both sides. That is where the nucleus would be if it had one. White blood cells and some tissues in the gut take a more dangerous route. They extend their telomers. The cost is a slight increase in the risk of cancer.
    The Xerox thing? Yeah, I don't buy that either. Though, that is somewhat true for Mitochondria.

    Reply
  9. We all know this is the end of the current standard of civilization in the West. There are limits to the achievement of blacks on the bell curve and the vast majority of them will be a burden to the world. The East will survive due to immigration policies but the West will become a collection of 3rd world countries full of strife. This is not just established science but anyone that’s honest with their own observations will admit this is the trajectory.

    Reply
  10. There is no count of the population of Africa. A few people look at satellite photos and try to guess at population for a small area then multiply that number to get a guess for Africa population as a whole. Then people in Europe and North America scream no the world's population is going up and don't want children. When the reality is we have no idea. Even China doesn't have a real census. They count their cities population then guess on the rural areas.

    Reply
  11. Proteostasis is the regulation including the breakdown and clearance of proteins. Enhancing that sounds like a great target, the problem is that since the proteins are not created by the program, and these proteins are partly random, it is nearly impossible to identify these, let alone, remove them.
    We do know there is one that is responsible for a lot of damage: Glucosepane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucosepane Just removing that one would be very nice. But that would still be very far from ending aging.

    Reply
  12. Thanks for your contribution. Please explain how to achieve "supporting mitochondrial function to provide a surplus of ATP energy to repair bots"

    Reply
  13. The analogy falls apart a bit. A lot of the aging is not programed, it is accumulated crud and damage at a molecular level. Some of this is because of our operating temperature as mammals and quantum effects, there is some probability of concentrations of photons (quantum tunneling) which breaks and creates bonds that are not part of the "program". High energy photons (ionizing radiation) also does the same sort of damage to the skin and eyes mostly. Crosslinks are usually the result of this. This prevents the easy movement of proteins welding them together in a sort of mat. This is why arteries harden and skin looses it elasticity. Some of this can be repaired. Some of it can't. Accumulated toxins can also cause damage and improper functioning. This is analogous to engines that have buildup and run poorly. A result of the design, but not really caused by the design. Age spots, those dark brown often waxy patches that show up, are an example of this. This is basically what we would call exhaust. Our engines, the mitochondria are sometimes damaged, and when damaged, don't burn fuel completely. The crud accumulates. You see it on your skin, but if this is on your skin, it is also in your muscles and in your brain. These cause obstruction in function. There are also accumulations of materials intended to fight infections. This, it appears, is what the amyloid plaques are.
    Modifying the code could easily slow aging to a crawl. Stopping? Prospects not promising.

    Reply
  14. The solution is simple: compensate for these nudges by fortifying cellular repair processes. This means things like:

    • supporting mitochondrial function to provide a surplus of ATP energy to repair bots
    • reducing inflammation, since inflammation leads to more inflammation in a positive feedback loop
    • reducing insult (i.e. lifestyle)

    There's no reason to age if these things are being done at a sufficient level.

    Reply
  15. Or the "cellular junk hypothesis": Byproducts of normal processes in and outside cells stick around as, well, sticky garbage. Beta amyloid plaques being the most infamous example, causing Alzheimer's. But we know that youthful animals have the ability to clear said junk.

    So here's what I think it is. It's very counter-intuitive, because it requires an understanding of mathematical chaos. Youthful animals have all kinds of error correcting and repair mechanisms to fix all the above mentioned issues. And for a few decades, these things work fine. Your body stays in the "youthful" chaotic attractor of a health "phase space".

    But when you get older, you engage more frequently in chronically unhealthy behaviors, such as drinking, smoking, and sedentary lifestyle. Every time you get drunk or sit in a cubicle all day, you give your body a little nudge to another chaotic attractor, the "aging" attractor.

    Eventually these nudges get frequent enough to push you into orbit of the "aging" attractor.

    (cont)

    Reply
  16. Actually I think it's even easier than that. There's this big mystery of why aging doesn't become noticeably destructive until well after child-rearing age. And the evolutionary explanation doesn't quite work. Because for most of human history, people had kids around age 15-20. So the latest that evolution would "care" about keeping you healthy would be the age that your kids have kids, which would have been around 30-40. Yet the destructive effects of aging on healthy people don't begin until well past 40. Some people don't deteriorate until after 50.

    Furthermore, the actual cellular mechanisms of aging that are popularly talked about by laymen can't be right.

    For example, what I call the "Xerox hypothesis": every time your DNA is copied, it accumulates errors, and eventually these errors add up to inhibit protein synthesis. This can't be correct because this would prevent people from reaching age 8, let alone 80.

    Then there's the "telomere hypothesis". Telomeres only allow about 50 cell divisions. If you do the math, that would also kill you in childhood. It turns out there's a pretty simple explanation: stem cells. Your body constantly makes new baby cells with fresh telomeres. Any evidence of predominantly short telomeres in aged animals has the causation backwards: some other aging effect is preventing stem cells from doing their job, and short telomeres are a symptom of this, not the cause.

    (cont)

    Reply
  17. From my experience and understanding of programming I see genetic code as kind of program, which tells our body, cells how to develop, what to do.

    If we gain sufficient knowledge and understanding how to tweak that program, modify it, we can delay, stop aging.

    We reprogram, remodify our genetic code.

    But we need need to know precisely what we are doing, because if you cut of some genetic code, instructions which are necessary- body needs them in some indirect passive way or another you can do a lot of damage.

    So in order to understand the complexity of cause-consequence of human genetic material and so on what is too much for human mind to comprehend we could use a lever to do it for us – machine learning,…

    One of the best ways to prevent all negative consequences of the old age is simply find a way to stop aging and keep cells regenerating at particular clock, to reprogram them that way.

    So as you add instructions to a program to do as you want with all the exceptions you need to add appropriate instructions to your genetic material, so at lets say when you are 30 you wont age and cells would keep regenerating at specific timeline and old ones would be removed. That would probably solve aging.

    Some interesting approaches produced good results, we are getting there.

    Reply

Leave a Comment