Worlds Population Will Hit 7 Billion On October 31st This Year

SharpshooterTom

UNITED NATIONS, New York—World population is projected to reach 7 billion on 31 October 2011, according to the 2010 Revision of World Population Prospects, the official United Nations population projections prepared by the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs and released today.

UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, is planning a series of activities to engage partners and the general public to underline the significance of this population milestone.

“A world of 7 billion is both a challenge and an opportunity,” said UNFPA Executive Director, Dr. Babatunde Osotimehin. “Globally, people are living longer, healthier lives and choosing to have smaller families. But reducing inequities and finding ways to ensure the well-being of people alive today – as well as the generations that follow – will require new ways of thinking and unprecedented global cooperation,” he said.

http://www.unfpa.org/public/home/news/pid/7597


Brief summary of other milestones:

1804 - 1 billion
1927 - 2 billion
1960 - 3 billion
1975 - 4 billion
1987 - 5 billion
1999 - 6 billion
2011 - 7 billion

Currently we are growing at 1 billion every 12 years. Considering it was only just under a century ago when the titanic sank the world's population was just over 1 billion. It shows how quickly the worlds population has grown.

Some estimates predict the population to slow although other estimates suggest it still may not.

So the day of 7 billion on 31st october 2011, day of celebration lol?

orourkeda

Go on the 7 billion

My name is URL

There needs to be a global catastrophe of some sort to bring the numbers down..

..that or an increase in carbon-tax

Redhairedguy

If we nuke China, that'll make a decent dent in bringing the population down.

jester77

Durex need to start looking into their QA

JohnMarston

Redhairedguy wrote: »

If we nuke China, that'll make a decent dent in bringing the population down.

They have the right idea in enforcing restrictions on family size

Naikon

"There's too many men. Too many people. Making too many problems."

orourkeda

Redhairedguy wrote: »

If we nuke China, that'll make a decent dent in bringing the population down.

What are we supposed to do for duck in black bean sauce

Biggins

Cancel October!

orourkeda

Naikon wrote: »

"There's too many men. Too many people. Making too many problems."

and not much love to go 'round

Bruthal

Gnobe wrote: »

just under a century ago when the titanic sank the world's population was just over 1 billion.

Must of been more on it than they thought.

Miguel_Sanchez

Congratulations You're Our 7th Billion Visitor. Click Here For Your Prize!

RedXIV

I helped make that 7 billion, without me there would only be 6,999,999,998

Kaneda_

We have to start looking at moving humans to mars, or the moon at least.

smokedeels

orourkeda wrote: »

What are we supposed to do for duck in black bean sauce

Uncle Ben, who should remain perfectly safe from the blast, in his home, on the island of fictional marketing gimmicks.

NothingMan

Naikon wrote: »

"There's too many men. Too many people. Making too many problems."

orourkeda wrote: »

and not much love to go 'round

Can't you see this is a land of confusion?

gigino

Gnobe wrote: »

Brief summary of other milestones:

1804 - 1 billion
1927 - 2 billion
1960 - 3 billion
1975 - 4 billion
1987 - 5 billion
1999 - 6 billion
2011 - 7 billion

Currently we are growing at 1 billion every 12 years. Considering it was only just under a century ago when the titanic sank the world's population was just over 1 billion. It shows how quickly the worlds population has grown.

No wonder there are so many problems in the world, climate change, migration , etc etc The Pope has a lot to answer for with his stance on condoms.

Biggins

NothingMan wrote: »

Can't you see this is a land of confusion?

I hear what your saying, I Phil ya! :pac:

holystungun9

NothingMan wrote: »

Can't you see this is a land of confusion?

This is the world we live in.

orourkeda

smokedeels wrote: »

Uncle Ben, who should remain perfectly safe from the blast, in his home, on the island of fictional marketing gimmicks.

while china boils in the bag

partyndbs

imagine the world when there was just like 500 million?

wonder how much people have lived on earth in its entire history?

Sykk

Waiting for the obligatory "There's room for more" posts..

SharpshooterTom

partyndbs wrote: »

wonder how much people have lived on earth in its entire history?

193 billion or something some online population clock has at the moment. Not sure how they worked that out. Isn't the world only meant to be 6000 years old according to some in America?

jimthemental

In fairness we're probably past it already, growth projections are out of date as soon as they are published.

Redhairedguy

Kaneda_ wrote: »

We have to start looking at moving humans to mars

MOAR THREE BREASTED WOMEN!!!

Kaneda_

partyndbs wrote: »

imagine the world when there was just like 500 million?

wonder how much people have lived on earth in its entire history?

I remember that was a question on a quiz show a few years back - the answer was that 10 percent of humans that have ever lived are alive now.

So 7 billion now = 70 billion human beings! I dont know if this is right or wrong , but then again i dont think anyone does,but thats what the quiz show said!

philologos

You can fit the worlds population into an area the size of Texas.

The whole world's population could fit in the state of Texas...Amazing as it may seem, the entire population of the world can be housed in the U.S. state of Texas — and very comfortably indeed, with each person enjoying a living far in excess of that now available to all but the most wealthy.
Consider these facts: The land area of Texas is some 262,000 square miles* and current UN estimates of the world's population (for 12 October 1999) are about 6 billion.** By converting square miles to square feet — remember to multiply by 5,280 feet per mile twice — and dividing by the world's population, one readily finds that there are more than 1,217 square feet per capita.
A family of 5 would thus occupy more than 6,085 square feet of living space. Even in Texas, that's a mansion.

Source here.
Albeit it's perhaps a seventh more tight now because of the extra billion, but none the less it really puts the overpopulation lark to rest.

Jumpy

philologos wrote: »

You can fit the worlds population into an area the size of Texas.


Source here.
Albeit it's perhaps a seventh more tight now because of the extra billion, but none the less it really puts the overpopulation lark to rest.

What do they eat?

Dyr

holystungun9 wrote: »

This is the world we live in.

su su sudio

bonerm

philologos wrote: »

You can fit the worlds population into an area the size of Texas.


Source here.
Albeit it's perhaps a seventh more tight now because of the extra billion, but none the less it really puts the overpopulation lark to rest.

I heard somewhere you could fit the entire population of the world (back-to-back) onto the Isle of Wight (tho that may not be enough anymore).

SharpshooterTom

philologos wrote: »

You can fit the worlds population into an area the size of Texas.


Source here.
Albeit it's perhaps a seventh more tight now because of the extra billion, but none the less it really puts the overpopulation lark to rest.

UN estimates suggest that only 2 billion or so at most can live a first world lifestyle with the limited resources that will continue to be the problem for the next 50-100 years. If the worlds population goes to 10, 11 billion etc then this will be a problem.

David Attenborough did a documentary last year with the BBC highlighting the dangers of it and has a joined a optimumpopulation organization to try and limit the growth. He's deadly serious, with all the natural resources a world population of 12, 13 billion is not a smart idea.

Ev84

Kaneda_ wrote: »

I remember that was a question on a quiz show a few years back - the answer was that 10 percent of humans that have ever lived are alive now.

So 7 billion now = 70 billion human beings! I dont know if this is right or wrong , but then again i dont think anyone does,but thats what the quiz show said!

70 billion human beings! Seventy thousand million! 70,000,000,000! That's a lot of people :pac:

SharpshooterTom

You have to also consider what about all the other species at the moment, most of them are becoming extinct because of us. Population growth will mean we have to clear more forests, have more mouths to feed, more resources stolen from other animals habitats.

philologos

Gnobe wrote: »

UN estimates suggest that only 2 billion or so at most can live a first world lifestyle with the limited resources that will continue to be the problem for the next 50-100 years. If the worlds population goes to 10, 11 billion etc then this will be a problem.

What factors are the UN basing this on? Just curious. Secondly, it may say something about our outright extravagance in the West. Perhaps we should be willing to take the hit for countries that are less fortunate. Perhaps that it a bit too radical for many of us, which will tell us where our real motivations lie.

Gnobe wrote: »

David Attenborough did a documentary last year with the BBC highlighting the dangers of it and has a joined a optimumpopulation organization to try and limit the growth. He's deadly serious, with all the natural resources a world population of 12, 13 billion is not a smart idea.

Interesting. Again, I'd need to know what factors he'd be basing that on. If you have an idea it'd be much appreciated.

gigino

Gnobe wrote: »

You have to also consider what about all the other species at the moment, most of them are becoming extinct because of us. Population growth will mean we have to clear more forests, have more mouths to feed, more resources stolen from other animals habitats.

As a race, because of our large families, no condoms, no abortion, we have probably done our share - or more than our share - to contribute to the problem.

Lets send an email to the Pope telling him it may be a good idea to allow the odd condom. ...or in another 100 years it will be what population as it explodes ? If every catholic family had 6 children who then each had 6 children who then ...;)

SharpshooterTom

philologos wrote: »

What factors are the UN basing this on? Just curious. Secondly, it may say something about our outright extravagance in the West. Perhaps we should be willing to take the hit for countries that are less fortunate. Perhaps that it a bit too radical for many of us, which will tell us where our real motivations lie.

Wiki gives this (Attenborough mentioned this figure in his documentary).

http://jayhanson.us/page99.htm

philologos wrote: »

Interesting. Again, I'd need to know what factors he'd be basing that on. If you have an idea it'd be much appreciated.

His overpopulation documentary may still be on youtube, it was there 6 months ago when i watched it, here's an interview with him done two years ago by the uk times.

Attenborough is not here to discuss wild-life. He is here to discuss humans, and how there are far too many of them. Earlier last week, when it was announced that he had become a patron of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), he explained that “there are three times as many people in the world as when I started making television programmes 56 years ago. It is frightening. We can’t go on as we have been. We are seeing the consequences in terms of eco-logy, atmospheric pollution and in terms of space and food production”.
He is the first to admit the problem is a thorny one. “Indeed; indeed it is,” he says, “but we can make sure women have the choice as to whether they have children. If you spread literacy, education, a decent standard of living, the population increase drops. That’s why the notion, the ability, to restrict population growth should be around. I don’t believe women want to have 12 children where eight of them die, as they did in this country 150 years ago. Now they have a choice, and that is the reason we have an almost static population here – if you discount immigration.” But isn’t it a bit too late for all this, now that the global population is nearly 7 billion and rising fast? “Oh yes, yes,” he says.
Besides, what’s the ideal figure for human life on Earth? Attenborough is a little soft-focus on details. “I don’t know how you’d calculate . . . optimum-ness, but certainly, the mere fact of what we’re doing to the natural world makes it perfectly clear we’re way past it. Half the world’s starving.”
He has seen this for himself countless times in “African slums, South American slums. Little kids playing with open sewers, rats, filth, disease, poverty, terrible”. The best number of children is “obviously two and a half”, he adds, laughing. “I don’t know about the right number.” He wouldn’t put a limit on the number of children a woman may have, as they do in China, but “obviously, having a large number of children is putting a strain on things”.
So what’s a large number? Attenborough has two: Susan, who is unmarried, and Robert, an anthropologist, who has two children. The great naturalist pauses to think. “Five. The fact is,” he sighs, “the human race ought to be reduced.”
You can’t just get rid of people, though. “No, no,” he says. “Well, you say that, but you do get rid of people – there are famines, and people are very good at getting rid of each other. I’m not for a micro-second suggesting that’s a good thing, but there are all sorts of diseases and disasters that can happen to humanity.”
So if we don’t take control of the problem ourselves, then nature or self-interest will. None of this is really applicable to Britain, of course. Here the problem is not overpopulation, but the ageing population.
“Yes, it presents great economic problems,” says Attenborough. “It’s a question of the lesser of two evils.” He will be 83 next month: presumably he wouldn’t like it if there was no one to look after him? “Of course you wouldn’t, because you’re selfish . . . It’s that blue butterfly again!” He pauses. “What was I saying?”
Keeping the population down. Getting old. Closing our borders? “We have to keep our borders open: it’s a worldwide problem,” he says. “You want a free movement of people round the world because that’s the only way you’re going to stop wars. Because if you put walls around yourself, you tend to think you’re the only people who are important, and that people on the other side of the wall are the enemy. And you only realise they aren’t the enemy if you travel among them.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6121737.ece

Skerries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snWstiQ4W9g

philologos

gigino wrote: »

As a race, because of our large families, no condoms, no abortion, we have probably done our share - or more than our share - to contribute to the problem.

It is possible to educate people in family planning. As for encouraging abortions to reduce world population, I would compare that will culling off people to keep the numbers down. It doesn't seem a rational response to the problem (if indeed there is one). I suspect in mentioning condoms you're rather overstating the impact that the Pope actually has in respect to this.

gigino wrote: »

Lets send an email to the Pope telling him it may be a good idea to allow the odd condom. ...or in another 100 years it will be what population as it explodes ? If every catholic family had 6 children who then each had 6 children who then ...;)

See above, although I think the overpopulation fears are hysteria.

nyarlothothep

Georgia Guidestones

Bruthal

RedXIV wrote: »

I helped make that 7 billion, without me there would only be 6,999,999,998

If you have 2 kids that would be 6,999,999,997:D

Mike 1972

philologos wrote: »

What factors are the UN basing this on? Just curious. Secondly, it may say something about our outright extravagance in the West. Perhaps we should be willing to take the hit for countries that are less fortunate.

Says a guy with a computer ?

Pherekydes

Gnobe wrote: »

It shows how quickly the worlds population has grown.

Yes. It's growing exponentially.

Some estimates predict the population to slow although other estimates suggest it still may not.

It won't.

So the day of 7 billion on 31st october 2011, day of celebration lol?

Yes. It's called Hallowe'en.

philologos

Mike 1972: What does our generally entail? Does the person who says "our" exclude themselves from the equation? Or do they generally include themselves? What do you think I've done in this situation? *

* N.B I recognise I'm extremely fortunate, at the same time one can still hope that the situation would improve for others.

richymcdermott

Gnobe wrote: »

http://www.unfpa.org/public/home/news/pid/7597


Brief summary of other milestones:

1804 - 1 billion
1927 - 2 billion
1960 - 3 billion
1975 - 4 billion
1987 - 5 billion
1999 - 6 billion
2011 - 7 billion

Currently we are growing at 1 billion every 12 years. Considering it was only just under a century ago when the titanic sank the world's population was just over 1 billion. It shows how quickly the worlds population has grown.

Some estimates predict the population to slow although other estimates suggest it still may not.

So the day of 7 billion on 31st october 2011, day of celebration lol?

Guess i have to do my part , my boys are ready to go

amacachi

Pherekydes wrote: »

Yes. It's growing exponentially.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=world+population

Looks pretty linear to me!

Pherekydes

amacachi wrote: »

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=world+population

Looks pretty linear to me!

It's not though. Change the scale on the time axis and you will see a more pronounced curvature. Or look at the milestone dates given in the OP: they are getting closer together.

robbie_998

holystungun9 wrote: »

This is the world we live in.

and these are the hands we're given

ihopethisfi

There are more people alive today than people that have been alive in the combined history of the world! interesting enough fact

gigino

philologos wrote: »

It is possible to educate people in family planning. .

It does not seem to be working / have worked, in certain religions / ethnic groups anyway.

philologos wrote: »

See above, although I think the overpopulation fears are hysteria.

...so you are not concerned about global warming , how oil etc is going to run out in our lifetime etc, and you are not concerned that the increase in world population in the past 12 years is equal to the total world population at the beginning of the 19th century ?

pablomakaveli

The world population is expected to carry on rising to peak of 10 billion in the next few decades but it'll probably decline after that. Though with places like India and China where the average person is becoming wealthier it'll mean the average persons impact on the world in terms of food, water energy used will also increase which could cause more problems.

amacachi

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's not though. Change the scale on the time axis and you will see a more pronounced curvature. Or look at the milestone dates given in the OP: they are getting closer together.

Herp derp, it was a joke. Though the rate of growth is already slowing and it's reckoned it'll peak sometime this century.

EDIT: Also the growth rate has actually been falling for a few decades so I'm not sure how it's growing exponentially.