The last 1,000 years of man; 2013-2200

It does occur to me that in this discussion of 1000 years into the future, that we could discuss the past 200 years when the world population was roughly 1 billion instead of the present day 7 billion.

Professional demographers usually limit their discussion to 40-50 years in the future while sometimes writing speculative papers about 100 years from now. The most widely cited number is a peak population of around 10 billion, but most professionals concede that very small changes in fertility makes a difference of a billion people plus or minus a very real possibility.

The world in 200 years might be radically different.

What do you think of world population in 200 years? 1, 3, 7, 10, 12 , 20 billion? Keep in mind that the population of the Western Hemisphere (North & South America is 1 billion). Both India and China are well over 1 billion apiece.

A world that returns to 3 billion people might not necessarily be a burnt out apocalyptic hulk, although returning to that level would probably be horrific. Keep in mind that a world population broke 3 billion in 1959, so it was well within the lifetime of many people on this forum.

Quote: Pacomartin

I thought that Tom Brokaw only did guest appearances these days.

.

I said he thinks its the 70's. He doesn't even
watch TV, he gets all his news from his wife.
I think he's scared he won't be able to use
a computer so he doesn't even try. My wife
was like that in the mid 90's, I had to literally
drag her to Best Buy because she was convinced
computers were too complicated for her. And
she was Valedictorian of her class! In a week she
was doing more than me and now you can't get
her off the damn thing. At work they all come
to her when they can't figure something out.

Sigh..

Quote: Pacomartin

The world in 200 years might be radically different.

What do you think of world population in 200 years? 1, 3, 7, 10, 12 , 20 billion? Keep in mind that the population of the Western Hemisphere (North & South America is 1 billion). Both India and China are well over 1 billion apiece.

A world that returns to 3 billion people might not necessarily be a burnt out apocalyptic hulk, although returning to that level would probably be horrific. Keep in mind that a world population broke 3 billion in 1959, so it was well within the lifetime of many people on this forum.

I see it about 3 billion in 200 years, but the fate in my 1,000 year prediction will be sealed. I know this is far out to predict, but this is a bbs not the UN, so here is what I see.

First, in 100 years we will not be able to ignore the decline in population. One thing that will happen is instead of estates dividing among more and more heirs they will consolidate over time as the more numerous generation dies out ant the new one gets their stuff. I used to see this in land work, where a 350 acre plot would be down to 30 acres in a few generations. This meant the next generation still had to work harder to make things happen. In 100 years the reverse will be true and people will spend more and more time living off wealth already created instead of creating their own.

This might seem good, but it will mean a decline in innovation, bringing on stagnant living conditions. Again, at first people will not mind since they can live "OK" but not work as much. However, it will keep downward pressure on births as slow economic conditions have since the 1940s.

More and more declines will mean the basic infrastructure cannot be kept working--think Detroit. So government will "encourage" denser and denser living conditions. People in apartments and condos don't have big families for the most part.

Meanwhile, a biggie happens. Like Smallpox pre-1970 and AIDS in the 1990s, a disease will just tear the heart out of Africa. With so few people on the homefront, the west will not be as able to help, and this will wipe out millions.

I will have more detail in my next installment.

Quote: AZDuffman

In 100 years the reverse will be true and people will spend more and more time living off wealth already created instead of creating their own.

This theory is sometimes called the "money makes you poor" theory.

The argument is that if you live off the gold collected in the New World (like Spain in the 17th century) or if you live off the fiscal policies (like USA selling banknotes that cost a dime to produce for $100 in real goods and services) eventually you begin to worry about status and creature comforts rather than increasing real productivity.

Eventually that phase ends, and your country begins to decline radically compared to other countries that worked on productivity (like Spain going from the richest country in the world in the 17th century to one of the poorest in Europe by the 19th century).

On the family generational level it is often called the "poor little rich kid" theory.

It is, of course, a massive oversimplified economic theory.

Quote: Pacomartin

This theory is sometimes called the "money makes you poor" theory.

The argument is that if you live off the gold collected in the New World (like Spain in the 17th century) or if you live off the fiscal policies (like USA selling banknotes that cost a dime to produce for $100 in real goods and services) eventually you begin to worry about status and creature comforts rather than increasing real productivity.

Eventually that phase ends, and your country begins to decline radically compared to other countries that worked on productivity (like Spain going from the richest country in the world in the 17th century to one of the poorest in Europe by the 19th century).

On the family generational level it is often called the "poor little rich kid" theory.

It is, of course, a massive oversimplified economic theory.

I saw it in a small way in the Jaycees about 1998-2003. Our chapter had loads of cash and not only was the waste sickening but the motivation of members was near zero. We attracted people who had no clue that a non-profit still needed to cover costs, not just give money away.

P.J. O'rourke said during the Gulf War he didn't see a Saudi lift anything heavier than money. These countries will be first to see this happen. But it will happen to the USA.

Country	TFR=	Less Fertile	More Fertile	Notes
Singapore	0.79	0.0%	99.9%	Least Fertile Country in World
Korea, South	1.24	0.5%	98.8%	Largest Country with Extremely Low Fertility
Lithuania	1.28	1.3%	98.7%	Least Fertile EU Country
Japan	1.39	3.0%	95.2%	Very High Human Development Index
China	1.55	9.0%	72.0%	(19% of world's pop.) One Child Policy since 1979
Russia	1.61	28.6%	69.4%	Most Populace European Country
Thailand	1.66	30.8%	68.3%	Most Populace SE Asian Country with low fertility
United Kingdom	1.90	38.7%	60.4%	Very High Human Development Index
United States	2.06	40.8%	54.8%	Replacement Level
France	2.08	45.2%	53.8%	Most Fertile EU Country
Indonesia	2.20	49.0%	47.5%	Median Population of World ranked by Fertility
Mexico	2.25	53.7%	44.7%	High Human Development Index
Bangladesh	2.50	58.7%	39.0%	Low Human Development Index
India	2.55	61.0%	21.8%	(17.2% of world's pop.) Largest source of babies from a country
Kuwait	2.56	78.2%	21.8%	Fertile and Rich
Israel	2.65	78.7%	21.2%	Most Fertile Country in First World
Egypt	2.90	80.4%	18.4%	Medium Human Development Index
Pakistan	2.96	81.8%	15.5%	Low Human Development Index
Guatemala	3.08	84.6%	15.2%	Most Fertile Country in Western Hemisphere
Philippines	3.10	84.8%	13.7%	Medium Human Development Index
Ethiopia	5.31	93.3%	5.4%	2nd Largest Country in Sub-Saharan Africa
Nigeria	5.31	94.6%	3.0%	Largest Country in Sub-Saharan Africa
Afghanistan	5.54	97.7%	1.9%	Most Fertile Country Outside Africa
Niger	7.03	99.8%	0.0%	Most Fertile Country in World

There is a strong correlation between fertility and wealth. It's not a perfect correlation, as there are some relatively poor Eastern European Nations with low fertility, and Kuwait and Israel are both well off countries with reasonably high fertility (mostly because of religious reasons). For similar reasons, Utah is the most fertile state in the USA.

The countries on the list are representative. The full list is about 200 countries. There is two percentages next to each country. For instance China has a total fertility rate of 1.55, and 9% of the population of the world lives in a country with lower fertility, and 72% of the world lives in a country with a higher fertility. Note that 9%+72%=81% as 19% of the world's population lives in China.

USA and France are basically at replacement level fertility. France is the most fertile country in the European Union. But the fertility of both of these countries has been raised by decades of immigration.

With very few exceptions like Kuwait and Israel, no country with a total fertility rate of 2.5 or higher is wealthy. Countries like Mexico with TFR=2.25 are transitioning to a first world economy, but a critical component has been reducing births to a manageable level.

Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world stands at about the median of the world's population in terms of fertility. The actual total fertility rate of the world is 2.45 since there are a number of countries with extremely high fertility.

At fertility rates above 3.,5 you are mostly talking about Sub-Sahara Africa. Afghanistan is a rare exception outside of that continent.

It is difficult not to think that half the world is in trouble. About 30.8% of the world's population today lives in countries with TFR<Thailand's 1.66, and 21.2% lives in countries with TFR>Israel's 2.65. Naturally these percentages will change radically in a decade as some country's shrink and others explode in population.

Although it is natural to think immigration will balance out some of the lopsided fertility rates consider that roughly 12 million immigrants entered the United through Ellis Island. A total of 12 million people will hardly make a dent in the world's imbalances of population today.

The effects of very low fertility are not felt for a long time. I think the first people to notice are the grandparents as their are fewer and fewer grandchildren. But the large sociological effects take many decades to be visible. But once the effects kick in, they will grow in magnitude very quickly.

Hungary has had it's population drop for 32 years without any obvious ill effects, but it has only gone down 7.2% in all those years. Population is now at the same level as the Hungarian revoluation of 1956.

I don't know how you guys haven't noticed it, but the laziness has already happened. Both the top and bottom are entitled and the middle just doesn't think it's worth it to fight. Somebody or something is always underestimated when it comes to predicting the future obviously.

Personally AZ, I think your media you probably see like Fox and Friends or Rush is just brain washing you with their spin. I used to like this type of thing back before Bush got elected, but got sick of spin for the cause at no expense over simply the truth. Both sides are pretty good at it and I try to stay away from both sides of the spectrum.

By stating 1,000 years of man, it's kind of optimistic for how bleak you are. The problem with the world is everyone is not looking at the big picture and just focuses on small things. Getting rid of monopolies, mega mergers and things like this or holding them accountable would go a long way to help, along with taking the money out of politics, and empowering the little guy would solve lots of these problems.
It all turns to junk when everything gets perverted from the original meaning and corrupt, but not corrupt by law.

Quote: 1nickelmiracle

By stating 1,000 years of man, it's kind of optimistic for how bleak you are. The problem with the world is everyone is not looking at the big picture and just focuses on small things. Getting rid of monopolies, mega mergers and things like this or holding them accountable would go a long way to help, along with taking the money out of politics, and empowering the little guy would solve lots of these problems.

It will not be a straight line. Until 2100 it will be stable, the next 250 years will be maybe a 50% decline then the rest of the 1,000 years will take the other 50%. I do not see what your "getting rid of monopolies......" line is about. We had bigger monopolies in 1890 than we do today. Government will be the bigger culprit as by 2100 it will be impossible to even start a business at the rate we are going. In the EU they are to the point you may not even be allowed to plant "unapproved" seeds in your own backyard garden!

Quote: AZDuffman

It will not be a straight line. Until 2100 it will be stable, the next 250 years will be maybe a 50% decline then the rest of the 1,000 years will take the other 50%. I do not see what your "getting rid of monopolies......" line is about. We had bigger monopolies in 1890 than we do today. Government will be the bigger culprit as by 2100 it will be impossible to even start a business at the rate we are going. In the EU they are to the point you may not even be allowed to plant "unapproved" seeds in your own backyard garden!

Government is big because it serves the corporations who need a sucker to sell to and get free stuff from. Government is there to act as an independent personae, but in reality, it's acting as an agent for them. I can see how it is hard to start a business because the banks don't want competitors for their babies they've formed, loaned money to, and control. When you're complaining about the EU and seeds, their governments are honest about safety and will not be used as tools. We have the same laws, not for GMOs, but for invasive species. On monopolies, it's something to have one company control everything, but when there are a few, we just automatically say not a monopoly, but they're well orchestrated with mutual goals.

Don't just listen to what you're being told, but ask for proof for facts and assertions. If government is so big, then why don't we prosecute anybody for these corporate crimes? How is a government with spending in trillions controlled by companies worth mere billions? Really a lot of schemes could never be pulled off without the government to enforce them down to sometimes actually doing all the work to benefit one party at the expense of a third party with the government being used as a weapon. I laugh when people think the government will collapse from debt, because it will never allow it, or else the people could escape from debt.

Really, the most important thing to consider as far as the long term future of man, is we have progressed to a point where being a mere human such as ourselves, is totally worthless and we are becoming obsolete! We aren't needed. It's going to become an impossible goal to be needed at least any many just based on odds, won't make it.

Quote: 1nickelmiracle

Really, the most important thing to consider as far as the long term future of man, is we have progressed to a point where being a mere human such as ourselves, is totally worthless and we are becoming obsolete! We aren't needed.

That's encouraging vision. A thousand years ago the population of the World was roughly the same as present day USA. I hope nobody thinks we should return to that population armed with machines to take care of many of our needs.

Reminds me of a certain film general when he finds out that the survival bunker will have 5 "attractive" women for every man to keep their libido working, and he will be one of the men.