Population stabilizes at a lower amount.

[Mathalamus]

Is it possible that the world population would stabilize at a lower number, say one or two billion?

and if so, how would the population remain stable, and not grow significantly?

i got this idea from the Vegetarian Timeline. seemed interesting.

 

[The Uchronian]

Is it possible that the world population would stabilize at a lower number, say one or two billion?

and if so, how would the population remain stable, and not grow significantly?

i got this idea from the Vegetarian Timeline. seemed interesting.

Not likely barring a Yellowstone eruption or some other major disaster that wrecks the planet.

 

[Elfwine]

Which is less likely to mean "Stable" population.

Populations grow to the limit that can be supported, barring artificial (including conscious choice) forces intervening.

 

[Mathalamus]

Which is less likely to mean "Stable" population.

Populations grow to the limit that can be supported, barring artificial (including conscious choice) forces intervening.

so basically impossible unless ASB measures, like only organic farming is used?

 

[iori]

The world population is'nt 'stable' in the first place.

The ONLY way you're going to get a population level to stay the same is through draconian measures on a global scale.

 

[Elfwine]

so basically impossible unless ASB measures, like only organic farming is used?

I wouldn't say "only organic farming" is ASB per se, except for trying to imagine how you're going to get that done with an early enough POD To matter.

Assuming that it would even check population growth at the level you desire.

 

[eliphas8]

Which is less likely to mean "Stable" population.

Populations grow to the limit that can be supported, barring artificial (including conscious choice) forces intervening.

There are minor factors like the introduction of effective birth control and contraceptives which matter a little too, you may be able to stabilize it at a somewhat lower number worldwide if you introduce it worldwide in the early 1700's.

 

[Mr.J]

You could have this happen in three ways IMO:

1. The "European Marriage Pattern" of late marriages and control of fertilty through abstention/withdrawl methods is more widespread, for whatever reason, and thus world populations grow slower and have less spectacular "Demographic transitions". Basically, if every country were like France in terms of historical demography, world population would probably be around 2-3 billion today

2. Earlier Birth Control: You have some sort of contraceptive plant that is common and easily grown, it doesn't even have to be perfectly effective. Of course, for either 1 or 2, you need some sort of economic/cultural incentive for people to limit reproduction as well.

3. Malthus: For whatever reason, if agriculture was far less productive in history and today, populations would've had to stabilize at far lower levels. This probably prevents the Industrial Revolution, though.

 

[iori]

Basically, if every country were like France in terms of historical demography, world population would probably be around 2-3 billion today

Frances growth history is not static, it basically just entered the phase several post-industrial countries hit in the late 20th century a few centuries earlier and has since moved onto the next phase, that being a new growth phase; France does afterall have one of the highest birthrates in Europe (2nd highest of EU countries) and saw an overall population increase of 4 million over the last decade, which while low when compared to a few other post-industrial countries and very low when compared to the developing world, is still moderately high for a country of its size and in its position.

2. Earlier Birth Control: You have some sort of contraceptive plant that is common and easily grown, it doesn't even have to be perfectly effective. Of course, for either 1 or 2, you need some sort of economic/cultural incentive for people to limit reproduction as well.

That happened IOTL, and any ATL version would suffer the same fate: being used to extinction.

 

[RousseauX]

Which is less likely to mean "Stable" population.

Populations grow to the limit that can be supported, barring artificial (including conscious choice) forces intervening.

The world population is'nt 'stable' in the first place.

The ONLY way you're going to get a population level to stay the same is through draconian measures on a global scale.

This isn't actually true, the first world for instance have either zero or even declining natural population growth rate when they are far below their carrying capacity, see Japan and Russia's -declining- population. And the fact that birth rates rapidly declines towards replacement rate in every developing country (see India or Brazil's birth rate over the last 50 years with no state imposed population control).

 

[RousseauX]

Frances growth history is not static, it basically just entered the phase several post-industrial countries hit in the late 20th century a few centuries earlier and has since moved onto the next phase, that being a new growth phase; France does afterall have one of the highest birthrates in Europe (2nd highest of EU countries)

That's not saying much

France has a high fertility rate by European standards; this rate has increased after reaching a historic low in the early 1990s.

• Total fertility rate: 2.01 children born per woman for metropolitan France and the overseas departments (in 2010),[1] 2.00 for metropolitan France alone (in 2010).[14]
• Mean age of women having their first birth: 29.9 years-old.[15]

The total fertility rates (TFR) for metropolitan France yearwise is given below. (Sources:[16][17][18])

This is below replacement fertility rate (2.33/woman)

Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman. At this rate, global population growth would trend towards zero.

and saw an overall population increase of 4 million over the last decade, which while low when compared to a few other post-industrial countries and very low when compared to the developing world, is still moderately high for a country of its size and in its position.

Immigration dude

 

[Mr.J]

That happened IOTL, and any ATL version would suffer the same fate: being used to extinction.

Not if it can be cultivated and grown as a cash crop/side plant in the peasant's garden patch.

 

[Mr.J]

This is below replacement fertility rate (2.33/woman)

IIRC replacement level is 2.1

 

[RousseauX]

IIRC replacement level is 2.1

I'm citing Wikipedia, but either way even a somewhat significant deviation from current birth rate produces near zero or declining population growth.

 

[iori]

This isn't actually true, the first world for instance have either zero or even declining natural population growth rate when they are far below their carrying capacity, see Japan and Russia's -declining- population.

Their are only two Advanced Economies (which First World has become Synonymous with) that had negative population growth between 2000-2010: Germany and Estonia.

Of the other countries with negative population growth, all but one of them (Greece) is either part of the former Eastern Bloc or a very small island country.

Their are only 2-3 countries that approach population stability, and that's only because they're small and grow slowly.

Japan grew by 1.1 million people over the last decade and the negative population growth only started in 2008.

Russia, while having seen negative growth rates since the 90's (a result of economic collapse, but also immigration to the ex-SSRs), has seen positive growth rate the last few years and has a government that's actively promoting population growth.

And the fact that birth rates rapidly declines towards replacement rate in every developing country (see India or Brazil's birth rate over the last 50 years with no state imposed population control).

That is a myth, while birth rates do decrease as a result of their no longer being a 50% chance of kids dying before they're adults and not needing to birth a village to survive economically, the idea that they all will become low is not correct, afterall Africa itself is'nt following the trend and in the post-industrial countries birth rates ar starting to either stabilize or grow.

IIRC replacement level is 2.1

The replacement level is 2.1 in the West/Developed countries, however globally it's 2.33.

 

[Avitus]

I'm always bothered when people say that birth control will stabilize/decrease the population, when the statistics clearly show that the introduction of birth control alone does nothing to stem the tide of population growth. Honestly, if birth control had the immediate effect of leveling off or shrinking a population's growth, then it would make no sense that the first American generation to widely use contraceptives were also known as the baby boomers. Concious choice, wheather using artificial contraceptives or not, has a far greater effect on population growth, which explains why Europe has done such a better job at levelling off than other areas.

In my opinion, the only way to level a society completely is to have it reach carrying capacity and not overshoot it, because overshooting carrying capacity often leads to a large die-off of excess population that usually brings a society well below carrying capacity again. How you shoot directly for 1-2 million I don't know, but strangling modern agricultural techniques in their cradle is a good way to start. The widespread use of the potato as a staple crop also contributed significantly to growth, because it produced far more calories relative to the area required to cultivate it than grains.

 

[kasumigenx]

Actually, the Native Taiwanese practiced mandatory abortions which retained the population small..

 

[RousseauX]

Their are only two Advanced Economies (which First World has become Synonymous with) that had negative population growth between 2000-2010: Germany and Estonia.

Of the other countries with negative population growth, all but one of them (Greece) is either part of the former Eastern Bloc or a very small island country.

That's quite an arbitrary definition of the first world and a lot of caveats to fit the data into your thesis dude (oh who am I joking you have no data backing you at all), nor, I should point out, has it being the case that other European countries having significantly different growth rates. In other words, even the countries that do not have negative growth rates are zero or close to it.

or a very small island country.

You make this in a thread where we specifically mentioned between us Japan, Germany and Russia, ok?

Their are only 2-3 countries that approach population stability, and that's only because they're small and grow slowly.

Japan grew by 1.1 million people over the last decade and the negative population growth only started in 2008.

Ok, so you managed to directly contradict yourself by first stating that only 2-3 small countries are approaching population stability and then agreeing with me by admitting that Japan has done exactly that?

Oh, and the statistic you have given is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan#Vital_statistics

Russia, while having seen negative growth rates since the 90's (a result of economic collapse, but also immigration to the ex-SSRs), has seen positive growth rate the last few years and has a government that's actively promoting population growth.

No it hasn't

http://www.google.ca/publicdata/exp...ry:RUS&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+growth+russia

That is a myth, while birth rates do decrease as a result of their no longer being a 50% chance of kids dying before they're adults and not needing to birth a village to survive economically, the idea that they all will become low is not correct, afterall Africa itself is'nt following the trend and in the post-industrial countries birth rates ar starting to either stabilize or grow.

On the other hand, the lack of post-industrial or developed countries in sub-Saharan Africa which makes your statement meaningless when we are specifically talking about declining birth rates coming along with certain level of economic development which Africa has yet to reach, and the one country (South Africa) which even comes close to that stage has dramatically lower growth rates over the last few decades. And statistics on every other part of the world supports this "myth". Nor is what you are saying even mutually exclusive with what I'm saying: since infant and children mortality greatly declines with economic development.


http://www.google.ca/publicdata/exp...&dl=en&hl=en&q=south+africa+population+growth

 

[RousseauX]

Honestly, if birth control had the immediate effect of leveling off or shrinking a population's growth, then it would make no sense that the first American generation to widely use contraceptives were also known as the baby boomers.

Do you even know who the baby boomers were and why they were called the baby boomers? Because your statement seems to indicate that you don't.

I'm always bothered when people say that birth control will stabilize/decrease the population, when the statistics clearly show that the introduction of birth control alone does nothing to stem the tide of population growth.

[citation needed]

 

[Codae]

Honestly, if birth control had the immediate effect of leveling off or shrinking a population's growth, then it would make no sense that the first American generation to widely use contraceptives were also known as the baby boomers.

The "baby boomers" are a group of people who were born at a high rate, not who had a lot of children of their own.