Seen anyone that got COVID a 2nd time & died? If not, why not?

[Mount Asclepius]

The end game for COVID-19 vaccines is, periodic boosters…

Doesn’t really answer the heart of my question. What’s periodic? I don’t disagree with you, but just feel it’s a strategy in perpetual uncertainty and study. Can we out-vaccinate this disease? Polio, yes. Influenza, not really - instead it’s more chronically coexisting. Where does COVID-19 fall?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[nikolaite]

That's awesome. How'd he do it?

I put him on a strict diet, primarily. His HDL, LDL, A1C, kidney function, testosterone, etc. are all now excellent for a man in his 30s, much more so being in his early 60s. He eats a tremendous amount of food daily, which he likes…it’s all unprocessed or unrefined, though. And no simple sugars. No alcohol. And at least 64 oz. water daily.

As far as exercise goes, just basically a pedometer to ensure 10k steps per day. Some weightlifting, which he greatly enjoys. Etc.

He went from a 31 BMI to 25. So I’m pretty happy.

 

[Birdstrike]

Where does COVID-19 fall?

My wild guess as a non-expert: COVID-19 become chronic and endemic. However, see the article I posted a few days back. It's possible it could wax and wane for a few years and go extinct. As unlikely as that seems, it often happens and no one knows entirely why.

 

[Mount Asclepius]

This will eventually turn into the other circulating viruses. Minimal morbidity and mortality. Might take several years or a decade or two. Why would you think otherwise? What is so special about this SARS-COV-2 vs
- 229E
- NL63
- OC43
- HKU1
- MERS
- SARS-COV-1

We have either defeated them or adapted to them and do fine.

At this point in evolution, I would rather bet money on human ingenuity over evolutional forces.

I agree with the first part. I strongly disagree with your last statement. I’d bet the house on evolution over human ingenuity at this point in history (who knows what the future holds). I think a lot of disagreement with the topic of COVID-19 surrounds general belief in medicine overall. I accept that maybe I’m in the minority on this forum as someone in a field I don’t really believe in any more.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Did you stick with the same formulation as the original two doses?

I did. Pfizer. The preliminary data from Israel shows the booster to have pretty good efficacy, so no reason to change to my mind. That said, I wouldn't fault anyone for taking a different one.

 

[thegenius]

I agree with the first part. I strongly disagree with your last statement. I’d bet the house on evolution over human ingenuity at this point in history (who knows what the future holds). I think a lot of disagreement with the topic of COVID-19 surrounds general belief in medicine overall. I accept that maybe I’m in the minority on this forum as someone in a field I don’t really believe in any more.

I'm not suggesting we would be a strong species in the next 100-200 years...and we will undoubtedly destroy the earth...but I don't think evolution will eventually allow plant and animal species to thrive while humans die to just a few million people due to our stupidity.

But at this point I would take human ingenuity, science and technology over some virus (or at least this virus).

Just imagine if a virus was introduced into the human population that had a CFR of 25%. I would still bet on human ingenuity...but we would see a good 1-2 billion or so people die over a span of a few years.

 

[Mount Asclepius]

I'm not suggesting we would be a strong species in the next 100-200 years...and we will undoubtedly destroy the earth...but I don't think evolution will eventually allow plant and animal species to thrive while humans die to just a few million people due to our stupidity.

But at this point I would take human ingenuity, science and technology over some virus (or at least this virus).

Just imagine if a virus was introduced into the human population that had a CFR of 25%. I would still bet on human ingenuity...but we would see a good 1-2 billion or so people die over a span of a few years.

Fair points. I just think our ingenuity with vaccines, masks, etc. are all just perhaps pretenses of control. Even if we do win, we still are on an inevitably path towards overpopulation, at which point the market forces of evolution result in increased abundance of disease due to more hosts available to infect with more opportunities for viruses to mutate and create variants. I’m not suggesting we as humans will be eradicated by viral disease, but more so that disease becomes endemic quicker than our ability to eliminate it with lockdowns and vaccination strategies.

 

[deleted1114045]

Fair points. I just think our ingenuity with vaccines, masks, etc. are all just perhaps pretenses of control. Even if we do win, we still are on an inevitably path towards overpopulation, at which point the market forces of evolution result in increased abundance of disease due to more hosts available to infect with more opportunities for viruses to mutate and create variants. I’m not suggesting we as humans will be eradicated by viral disease, but more so that disease becomes endemic quicker than our ability to eliminate it with lockdowns and vaccination strategies.

We are not on a path to overpopulation. Consider this book as evidence: Amazon product
Forgive me for quoting Canadians…it goes counter to my soul.

“For half a century, statisticians, pundits, and politicians have warned that a burgeoning planetary population will soon overwhelm the earth's resources. But a growing number of experts are sounding a different kind of alarm. Rather than growing exponentially, they argue, the global population is headed for a steep decline.

Throughout history, depopulation was the product of catastrophe: ice ages, plagues, the collapse of civilizations. This time, however, we're thinning ourselves deliberately, by choosing to have fewer babies than we need to replace ourselves. In much of the developed and developing world, that decline is already underway, as urbanization, women's empowerment, and waning religiosity lead to smaller and smaller families. In Empty Planet, Ibbitson and Bricker travel from South Florida to Sao Paulo, Seoul to Nairobi, Brussels to Delhi to Beijing, drawing on a wealth of research and firsthand reporting to illustrate the dramatic consequences of this population decline--and to show us why the rest of the developing world will soon join in.

They find that a smaller global population will bring with it a number of benefits: fewer workers will command higher wages; good jobs will prompt innovation; the environment will improve; the risk of famine will wane; and falling birthrates in the developing world will bring greater affluence and autonomy for women. But enormous disruption lies ahead, too. We can already see the effects in Europe and parts of Asia, as aging populations and worker shortages weaken the economy and impose crippling demands on healthcare and social security. The United States is well-positioned to successfully navigate these coming demographic shifts--that is, unless growing isolationism and anti-immigrant backlash lead us to close ourselves off just as openness becomes more critical to our survival than ever before.

Rigorously researched and deeply compelling,Empty Planet offers a vision of a future that we can no longer prevent--but one that we can shape, if we choose.”

 

[Birdstrike]

So some docs I know have gotten their 3rd dose already, who are not immunosuppressed etc.

Anyone here gotten it yet?

At least 2 of the 5 docs in my office have gotten boosters. The other 3 might or might not have, I'm not sure. But two of five definitely have.

 

[thegenius]

We are not on a path to overpopulation. Consider this book as evidence: Amazon product
Forgive me for quoting Canadians…it goes counter to my soul.

“For half a century, statisticians, pundits, and politicians have warned that a burgeoning planetary population will soon overwhelm the earth's resources. But a growing number of experts are sounding a different kind of alarm. Rather than growing exponentially, they argue, the global population is headed for a steep decline.

Why won't Earth's population just reach steady state or oscillate around steady state.

I wonder what the authors mean by "steep decline"

I have read more than once that the population will increase over the next few decades, give or take, and then start to tail back due to resources. But who knows. Maybe they are (and as a result me) are wrong.

 

[RustedFox]

I'd love to see a steep decline in population.
I like nature more than I like most people.

 

[deleted1114045]

Why won't Earth's population just reach steady state or oscillate around steady state.

I wonder what the authors mean by "steep decline"

I have read more than once that the population will increase over the next few decades, give or take, and then start to tail back due to resources. But who knows. Maybe they are (and as a result me) are wrong.

As in steep decline, like the backside of a COVID curve. Populations grow exponentially and they decline exponentially. Because…laws of mathematics?

 

[nikolaite]

As in steep decline, like the backside of a COVID curve. Populations grow exponentially and they decline exponentially. Because…laws of mathematics?

More like laws of nature...such as entropy.

 

[RustedFox]

More like laws of nature...such as entropy.

"Entropy.... it's just not what it used to be."

 

[Mount Asclepius]

We are not on a path to overpopulation. Consider this book as evidence: Amazon product
Forgive me for quoting Canadians…it goes counter to my soul.

“For half a century, statisticians, pundits, and politicians have warned that a burgeoning planetary population will soon overwhelm the earth's resources. But a growing number of experts are sounding a different kind of alarm. Rather than growing exponentially, they argue, the global population is headed for a steep decline.

Throughout history, depopulation was the product of catastrophe: ice ages, plagues, the collapse of civilizations. This time, however, we're thinning ourselves deliberately, by choosing to have fewer babies than we need to replace ourselves. In much of the developed and developing world, that decline is already underway, as urbanization, women's empowerment, and waning religiosity lead to smaller and smaller families. In Empty Planet, Ibbitson and Bricker travel from South Florida to Sao Paulo, Seoul to Nairobi, Brussels to Delhi to Beijing, drawing on a wealth of research and firsthand reporting to illustrate the dramatic consequences of this population decline--and to show us why the rest of the developing world will soon join in.

They find that a smaller global population will bring with it a number of benefits: fewer workers will command higher wages; good jobs will prompt innovation; the environment will improve; the risk of famine will wane; and falling birthrates in the developing world will bring greater affluence and autonomy for women. But enormous disruption lies ahead, too. We can already see the effects in Europe and parts of Asia, as aging populations and worker shortages weaken the economy and impose crippling demands on healthcare and social security. The United States is well-positioned to successfully navigate these coming demographic shifts--that is, unless growing isolationism and anti-immigrant backlash lead us to close ourselves off just as openness becomes more critical to our survival than ever before.

Rigorously researched and deeply compelling,Empty Planet offers a vision of a future that we can no longer prevent--but one that we can shape, if we choose.”

We are already overpopulated. All of the world’s major problems are due to too many people living in close proximity to each other. I see it worsening not improving. I respectfully disagree that we will have a steep decline in population due to people all individually choosing to not have babies. We live in a developed country and yet every day in the ED I see a boatload of teens and 20 year old heroin/meth heads reproducing like rabbits. Drug abuse also appears to be protective from a second case of COVID-19, as these people seem to have 9 lives.

 

[deleted1114045]

We are already overpopulated. All of the world’s major problems are due to too many people living in close proximity to each other. I see it worsening not improving. I respectfully disagree that we will have a steep decline in population due to people all individually choosing to not have babies. We live in a developed country and yet every day in the ED I see a boatload of teens and 20 year old heroin/meth heads reproducing like rabbits. Drug abuse also appears to be protective from a second case of COVID-19, as these people seem to have 9 lives.

Sorry to perseverate...

Darrell Brickner and John Ibbitson document this globally plummeting birth rate and predict a global population implosion in the next 3 decades as countries modernize, rural dwellers move to the cities and people all over the world decide that they can’t afford to have children. Elon Musk recently tweeted, “Real issue will [be] an aging & declining world population by 2050, *not* overpopulation. Randers estimate far more accurate than UN imo.”

The higher the GDP, the less children people have. Globally (not in the West) per capita GDP is rapidly increasing. This is a well documented phenomenon. See the attached graphic. For a population to be static, it needs a fertility rate of 2.1 (on average, 2.1 births/woman). If it has a birthrate greater than that, it will grow. If it has a birthrate lower than that, it will shrink. South Korea has a birthrate of 1, Ukraine, Spain and Italy-1.3, Japan-1.4, Poland, Canada, and Thailand-1.5, Germany and Russia-1.6, UK, US, Brazil, and China-1.7, Columbia-1.8, Nepal and France-1.9. Total Fertility Rate 2021

The “western world” is facing a population implosion. Italy has been giving out monetary rewards for reproducing, and has billboards encouraging people to reproduce.

“If we carry on as we are and fail to reverse the trend, there will be fewer than 350,000 births a year in 10 years’ time, 40 percent less than in 2010 — an apocalypse,” the minister, Beatrice Lorenzin, said in an interview with La Repubblica on Sunday.

“In five years we have lost more than 66,000 births (per year) — that is the equivalent of a city the size of Siena,” the minister added. “If we link this to the increasing number of old and chronically ill people, we have a picture of a moribund country.” https://www.thelocal.it/20160517/why-italys-facing-a-birth-rate-apocalypse

"Portugal’s National Statistics institute predicts that Portugal’s population could decrease from 10.5 million to 6.3 million in 2060 if trends don’t change. Germany has been experiencing more deaths than births for several decades. Its government is expecting their population to decrease from 81 million to 67 million by 2060." Europe needs many more babies to avert a population disaster

Japan is in a potential death spiral due to failing birthrates. Their population shrank by 1 million people in five years. Adam Taylor said:

"Japan's birth rate has long been significantly below the 2.1 per woman that is needed to sustain growth — it currently stands at about 1.4 per woman — and the deficit isn't made up by significant levels of immigration like it is in some other nations. Japan is far from alone here. The U.N. has estimated that a total of 48 countries will see their population decline by 2050. Moldova is expected to lose more than half its population by 2100, the worst decline of anywhere in the world. But Moldova is tiny. Japan is the third largest economy in the world. It's a crucial trading partner for the United States and China." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rinking/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e09428c1ab10

South Korea has a birth rate of 1.2. By 2040, in South Korea, there will be “almost three old people for every young person.” (Bricker & Ibbitson, 2019, p. 78)

Only Africa, South Asia and the Middle East will continue to grow their populations. However, as they rapidly modernize, access to birth control will cause birthrates to plummet as they have in the West. As these countries continue the transition away from agrarian populations where children are an asset to industrialized countries, where children are extremely costly, birthrates will plummet. All global population models point to a peak in global population, followed by a decrease. Only the timing of the peak is debated.

We absolutely do not have overpopulation here in America. Barring massive immigration, population shrinkage is inevitable in the US as our fertility rate is 1.7. The United States is ranked 179th out of 241 countries in the world when it comes to population density. We have 85 people per square mile, compared to 660 per square mile in England. China has 373 people per square mile, Japan 873, Switzerland 495, Spain 236, Greece 223, and France 295. If the communist government of North Korea, despite its international sanctions, and backwardness can sustain a population density of 518 per square mile, I think that saying we are overpopulated is inaccurate.

 

[RustedFox]

@RonWeasley7 :

No need to apologize. This is good discussion.

I feel like it's a pretty safe assumption that we don't want to live here in the west like they do in many of those other sites where the population is stacked atop one another. "Too many rats in the cage, and they get aggressive" and all that.

Forgive me, but I don't see the downside here.
I'm not being argumentative or anything like that.

You cite the example of Italy; a nation that I know a lot about (have family living there). I don't want to live with three other generations of my family in the same tiny home on the same street as other multi-generational tiny homes. Italy could use some elbow room.

 

[Mount Asclepius]

Sorry to perseverate...

Darrell Brickner and John Ibbitson document this globally plummeting birth rate and predict a global population implosion in the next 3 decades as countries modernize, rural dwellers move to the cities and people all over the world decide that they can’t afford to have children. Elon Musk recently tweeted, “Real issue will [be] an aging & declining world population by 2050, *not* overpopulation. Randers estimate far more accurate than UN imo.”

The higher the GDP, the less children people have. Globally (not in the West) per capita GDP is rapidly increasing. This is a well documented phenomenon. See the attached graphic. For a population to be static, it needs a fertility rate of 2.1 (on average, 2.1 births/woman). If it has a birthrate greater than that, it will grow. If it has a birthrate lower than that, it will shrink. South Korea has a birthrate of 1, Ukraine, Spain and Italy-1.3, Japan-1.4, Poland, Canada, and Thailand-1.5, Germany and Russia-1.6, UK, US, Brazil, and China-1.7, Columbia-1.8, Nepal and France-1.9. Total Fertility Rate 2021

The “western world” is facing a population implosion. Italy has been giving out monetary rewards for reproducing, and has billboards encouraging people to reproduce.

“If we carry on as we are and fail to reverse the trend, there will be fewer than 350,000 births a year in 10 years’ time, 40 percent less than in 2010 — an apocalypse,” the minister, Beatrice Lorenzin, said in an interview with La Repubblica on Sunday.

“In five years we have lost more than 66,000 births (per year) — that is the equivalent of a city the size of Siena,” the minister added. “If we link this to the increasing number of old and chronically ill people, we have a picture of a moribund country.” https://www.thelocal.it/20160517/why-italys-facing-a-birth-rate-apocalypse

"Portugal’s National Statistics institute predicts that Portugal’s population could decrease from 10.5 million to 6.3 million in 2060 if trends don’t change. Germany has been experiencing more deaths than births for several decades. Its government is expecting their population to decrease from 81 million to 67 million by 2060." Europe needs many more babies to avert a population disaster

Japan is in a potential death spiral due to failing birthrates. Their population shrank by 1 million people in five years. Adam Taylor said:

"Japan's birth rate has long been significantly below the 2.1 per woman that is needed to sustain growth — it currently stands at about 1.4 per woman — and the deficit isn't made up by significant levels of immigration like it is in some other nations. Japan is far from alone here. The U.N. has estimated that a total of 48 countries will see their population decline by 2050. Moldova is expected to lose more than half its population by 2100, the worst decline of anywhere in the world. But Moldova is tiny. Japan is the third largest economy in the world. It's a crucial trading partner for the United States and China." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rinking/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e09428c1ab10

South Korea has a birth rate of 1.2. By 2040, in South Korea, there will be “almost three old people for every young person.” (Bricker & Ibbitson, 2019, p. 78)

Only Africa, South Asia and the Middle East will continue to grow their populations. However, as they rapidly modernize, access to birth control will cause birthrates to plummet as they have in the West. As these countries continue the transition away from agrarian populations where children are an asset to industrialized countries, where children are extremely costly, birthrates will plummet. All global population models point to a peak in global population, followed by a decrease. Only the timing of the peak is debated.

We absolutely do not have overpopulation here in America. Barring massive immigration, population shrinkage is inevitable in the US as our fertility rate is 1.7. The United States is ranked 179th out of 241 countries in the world when it comes to population density. We have 85 people per square mile, compared to 660 per square mile in England. China has 373 people per square mile, Japan 873, Switzerland 495, Spain 236, Greece 223, and France 295. If the communist government of North Korea, despite its international sanctions, and backwardness can sustain a population density of 518 per square mile, I think that saying we are overpopulated is inaccurate.

Yes, the reproduction rate in the 'developed' world is decreasing. People are also living longer. The world's population continues to increase in size.

What is the number 1 cause of climate change? People. Too many. They also contribute to armed conflict, pandemics and a host of other ills in this world. Sure, people have also led to great innovation. We are overpopulated though.

I hope you are right as I would love to see fewer people in the world. Unfortunately I don't think that will be the case.

 

[thegenius]

Hey man I hear what you are saying. I guess some researchers think the worlds population is shrinking now, or going to contract very quickly, and then I read stuff on WorldOMeters, a website whose reputation is subject to much scrutiny:

World Population:

• has reached 7 billion on October 31, 2011.
• is projected to reach 8 billion in 2023, 9 billion in 2037, and 10 billion people in the year 2055.
• has doubled in 40 years from 1959 (3 billion) to 1999 (6 billion).
• is currently (2020) growing at a rate of around 1.05 % per year, adding 81 million people per year to the total.
• growth rate reached its peak in the late 1960s, when it was at 2.09%.
• growth rate is currently declining and is projected to continue to decline in the coming years (reaching below 0.50% by 2050, and 0.03% in 2100) .
• a tremendous change occurred with the industrial revolution: whereas it had taken all of human history up to the year 1800 for world population to reach 1 billion, the second billion was achieved in only 130 years (1930), the third billion in 30 years (1960), the fourth billion in 15 years (1974), the fifth billion in 13 years (1987), the sixth billion in 12 years (1999) and the seventh billion in 12 years (2011). During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion

Sources for the world population counter:

• World Population Prospect: the 2019 Revision - United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (June 2019)
• International Programs Center at the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division

I'm with RF, I would be happy to see populations decline.

 

[RustedFox]

Hey man I hear what you are saying. I guess some researchers think the worlds population is shrinking now, or going to contract very quickly, and then I read stuff on WorldOMeters, a website whose reputation is subject to much scrutiny:

World Population:

• has reached 7 billion on October 31, 2011.
• is projected to reach 8 billion in 2023, 9 billion in 2037, and 10 billion people in the year 2055.
• has doubled in 40 years from 1959 (3 billion) to 1999 (6 billion).
• is currently (2020) growing at a rate of around 1.05 % per year, adding 81 million people per year to the total.
• growth rate reached its peak in the late 1960s, when it was at 2.09%.
• growth rate is currently declining and is projected to continue to decline in the coming years (reaching below 0.50% by 2050, and 0.03% in 2100) .
• a tremendous change occurred with the industrial revolution: whereas it had taken all of human history up to the year 1800 for world population to reach 1 billion, the second billion was achieved in only 130 years (1930), the third billion in 30 years (1960), the fourth billion in 15 years (1974), the fifth billion in 13 years (1987), the sixth billion in 12 years (1999) and the seventh billion in 12 years (2011). During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion

Sources for the world population counter:

• World Population Prospect: the 2019 Revision - United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (June 2019)
• International Programs Center at the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division

I'm with RF, I would be happy to see populations decline.

Yeah, its not that I want to see people suffer and die (in before anyone on here accuses me of such and this gets political and then southerndoc has to regulate); its just that I see less suffering with people that aren't stacked one on top the other, and a more peaceful existence on this blue rock in the inner regions of the milky way with this path forward.

Kowloon walled city. Nightmare fuel.

 

[Dred Pirate]

Yeah, its not that I want to see people suffer and die (in before anyone on here accuses me of such and this gets political and then southerndoc has to regulate); its just that I see less suffering with people that aren't stacked one on top the other, and a more peaceful existence on this blue rock in the inner regions of the milky way with this path forward.

Kowloon walled city. Nightmare fuel.

I agree with all of this - have any of you read Dante? Basically the "bad guy" developes a virus that is going to reduce the world's population to 1/3 of what it is now. It sounds all horrible at first, some guy is going to kill billions of people? It actally turns out to be a virus that doesn't affect anyones health other than the fact it makes 1/2 (or something like that) the people sterile and unable to reproduce. Basically I found myself rooting for said bad guy by the end.

 

[Arcan57]

I'm not sure it's a question purely of population. Sure, there's some absolute number beyond which we simply can't meet the caloric requirements to sustain. But a bigger issue is the percentage of the population that has "a lot of stuff". From a resource consumption standpoint, we're oversubscribed and doing significant damage to the inhabitability of the planet. There's not any serious debate about this. Each person living an American level of consumption lifestyle takes a much higher toll on the environment than say a tribesman in sub-Saharan Africa. Our level of want isn't sustainable and it's not a good thing that transmission of desire for consumption has been our most effective cultural export. So even if population declines rapidly, it may still get dicey if consumerism rises quickly.

 

[RustedFox]

I'm not sure it's a question purely of population. Sure, there's some absolute number beyond which we simply can't meet the caloric requirements to sustain. But a bigger issue is the percentage of the population that has "a lot of stuff". From a resource consumption standpoint, we're oversubscribed and doing significant damage to the inhabitability of the planet. There's not any serious debate about this. Each person living an American level of consumption lifestyle takes a much higher toll on the environment than say a tribesman in sub-Saharan Africa. Our level of want isn't sustainable and it's not a good thing that transmission of desire for consumption has been our most effective cultural export. So even if population declines rapidly, it may still get dicey if consumerism rises quickly.

I learned this back in undergraduate. The "five earths" rule.
If everyone on planet earth were to live at the standard of life that we have in America, it would take five "earths" worth of resources to make that sustainable.

I can't help but to say this, too. That class (which wasn't a waste of time; was actually pretty interesting) was entitled: "Thinking About the Environment" in the course catalog.

My roommate at the time (who I am still friends with) joked:

"RustedFox went to go take his final exam in that Earth class he is taking; but instead, he took the paper that the final exam was printed on and recycled it instead."

 

[Birdstrike]

You can't put much stock in any of these Armageddon-like predictions of the future. This explains why experts are typically catastrophically bad at predicting the future:

"The Peculiar Blindness of Experts."

 

[deleted1114045]

You can't put much stock in any of these Armageddon-like predictions of the future. This explains why experts are typically catastrophically bad at predicting the future:

"The Peculiar Blindness of Experts."

That article was absolutely AMAZING. Erhlich was catastrophically wrong.

 

[deleted1114045]

I'm not sure it's a question purely of population. Sure, there's some absolute number beyond which we simply can't meet the caloric requirements to sustain. But a bigger issue is the percentage of the population that has "a lot of stuff". From a resource consumption standpoint, we're oversubscribed and doing significant damage to the inhabitability of the planet. There's not any serious debate about this. Each person living an American level of consumption lifestyle takes a much higher toll on the environment than say a tribesman in sub-Saharan Africa. Our level of want isn't sustainable and it's not a good thing that transmission of desire for consumption has been our most effective cultural export. So even if population declines rapidly, it may still get dicey if consumerism rises quickly.

I loved this book that made me think a lot more positively about the future of this planet. Granted, it outlines the decline of the west… But globally, the conditions for the common man are improving dramatically.

The authors point out the amazing progress that has been made in the past 200 years. Due to exponentially growing technology and innovation, the world economy has grown over a hundred-fold since 1820. While 84 percent of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty in 1820, it has dropped to 8.6 percent today. The global standard of living has increased by around 10 times during that time. In non-western countries, income inequality is decreasing. In 1820, the global average life expectancy was a mere 30 years of age. Today, it has more than doubled to 72 years of age. Before 1820, 30 percent of children died before 12 months of age. In industrial modern societies, that death rate has fallen to below one percent and globally, is down to three percent. Women have more rights than ever before.

While in 1820, 90 percent of the world was illiterate, now 90 percent are literate. Because of better nutrition, access to healthcare and clean water in addition to increasing availability of education, IQs globally are increasing every year. While doomsayers prophesied population explosion and resource scarcity, the opposite has happened. Population growth is slowing dramatically and all projections are for a coming decline. Resources, adjusted for inflation are becoming cheaper and more abundant around the planet. Due to revolutionary changes in agriculture, the food supply of available food per person in the world has increased. In the 1960’s the world only produced enough food for 2200 calories per person per day. Today, that figure has grown to nearly 3000 calories per person per day. Even in Sub-Saharan Africa that suffered from famine in the 20th century is now producing nearly 2500 calories per person per day. Because of the trend of urbanization, more and more farmland is reverting back to forests, increasing availability of habitat for wildlife and increasing CO2 consumption and oxygen production. Democracies are on the rise. Because of safer buildings, better transportation, warning systems, and aid efforts, the number of people dying from natural disasters is plummeting…99% since 1920. Work conditions have never been better. If these trends continue, we will enter an amazing era of global peace and prosperity that has never been seen before!

Amazon product

 

[Clean7795]

I disagree with the whole "experts are bad at predicting the future". Experts in general are not bad at predicting the future, the problem is that people who tend to be confident about unknowable uncertainties are the ones who tend to be the loudest. On top of that, politicians, media, and the public tend to listen to those who hyperbolize. "WE WILL ALL DIE SOON" grabs a lot more attention than "we are overutilizing resources, at some undetermined point some or all resources will become strained, which will affect our quality of life negatively".

Usually broad sweeping statements about the doom of the Earth are wrong precisely because the person speaking about it is NOT an expert. You'd need a strong understanding of the catastrophe's mechanisms, the current state of technologies we have to counteract the catastrophy, the effect on economics, the effect on current major geopolitical powers, and the psychological impact on the common person in society. This is essentially impossible to have a single person be an expert at all of this. Hence unless there is some sort of widespread scientific consensus, the ramblings of one man/woman shouldn't be used to conclude that experts are bad at making predictions.

 

[d2305]

There's also the meteor thing, gamma ray burst, rouge planets, and the big rip. It's not if, but when.

 

[nikolaite]

There is no expertise in predicting what is unknowable by human nature; it's simply incredible hubris to take past or current events and circumstances and extrapolate a certain view of the future. The reality is that no one knows for certain until it happens.

 

[Arcan57]

You can't put much stock in any of these Armageddon-like predictions of the future. This explains why experts are typically catastrophically bad at predicting the future:

"The Peculiar Blindness of Experts."

It’s not going to be Armageddon (likely) but things are going to get progressively harder and we may have seen the apex of our culture already. Unfortunately, it’s likely to be replaced by an authoritarian (either governmental or corporate fascism) structure that gains power by promising a return to a way of life that’s impossible to reclaim.

 

[Birdstrike]

I disagree with the whole "experts are bad at predicting the future".

I'm not sure there's anyone that's good at predicting the future.

 

[deleted1114045]

Yes, the reproduction rate in the 'developed' world is decreasing. People are also living longer. The world's population continues to increase in size.

What is the number 1 cause of climate change? People. Too many. They also contribute to armed conflict, pandemics and a host of other ills in this world. Sure, people have also led to great innovation. We are overpopulated though.

I hope you are right as I would love to see fewer people in the world. Unfortunately I don't think that will be the case.

View attachment 342889

View attachment 342891

This graph perfectly proves the fact that global population is not far from peaking and then decreasing. The global growth rate of the population is 0.1% and rapidly decreasing. This looks just like a growth curve of a virus outbreak.

 

[RustedFox]

This graph perfectly proves the fact that global population is not far from peaking and then decreasing. The global growth rate of the population is 0.1% and rapidly decreasing. This looks just like a growth curve of a virus outbreak.