The human species has topped 8 billion, with longer lifespans offsetting fewer births, but world population growth continues a long-term trend of slowing down, the US Census Bureau said Thursday.

The bureau estimates that the global population exceeded the threshold on 26 September, though the agency said to take this precise date with a grain of salt.

The United Nations estimated the number was passed 10 months earlier, having declared 22 November 2022, the “Day of 8 Billion”, the Census Bureau pointed out in a statement.

The discrepancy is due to countries counting people differently — or not at all. Many lack systems to record births and deaths. Some of the most populous countries, such as India and Nigeria, haven’t conducted censuses in over a decade, according to the bureau.

While world population growth remains brisk, growing from 6 billion to 8 billion since the turn of the millennium, the rate has slowed since doubling between 1960 and 2000.

  • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There are more than enough resources to go around, and we aren’t going to start killing off new people to sustain greedy and wasteful old people. There’s no solution you could suggest regarding population count that wouldn’t be extremely short sighted and temporary.

    Population is growth is not a unstoppable phenomenon and will soon stagnate. The problem is how much we’ve allowed single human beings to take. We could all live like we made 100k a year even at 12 billion people, if only it meant a handful of people weren’t allowed to hoard and cheat society out of enormous amounts of wealth.

    I think you simply underestimate how much a billion is. You underestimate how much water 12 billion people need compared to how much nestle shoves in bottles for free to ship off to another part of the world. You also clearly didn’t watch the video.

    • HubertManne@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      overpopulation is not about minimum requirements to sustain life in individuals to me. Its about what population the planet can sustain while renewing the resources used each year for each individual in the population to enjoy a modern, educated, fullfilling life. I agree there are little to no solutions for it. I swear though that population peak has been predicted for awhile as just a bit off but we seem to keep on growing. I think we will grow till we crash more than likely.

      • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What have you studied to conclude it will continue to grow? Just your intuition?

        The professionals in the video (with sources in the comments) have studied the growth and we’re right on track.

        There are more than enough riches on earth for every single on of those 12b people to live a modern life. Which is more than can be said about people living that life in 2023. It’s not more people that made the wage gap.

        • HubertManne@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          On the first part it is continuing to grow as of now just like the professionals say. If you mean predictions of the future I just was remarking that for decades I have heard about a peak and leveling off but it always seems 20 or more years away. Like fusion. There are currently not enough “riches” to provide for what humanity is using now even with not a 100% of the 8b leading a modern life that the world can renew. 1970 was about the time the population was using the amount of resources that the world was able to regenerate. Thus the birth of world overshoot day. I believe this year was august second and we are currently eating into next years materials

          • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This is a straight up lie. It’s not “20 years away”. I didn’t even give you a year, because you don’t understand that’s not how the math works.

            The 12th billion human won’t be born because there won’t be economic incentive for it. Watch the damn video, baby booming is only proportional to child mortality, which after a certain economic level people stop needed 10 kids. Then the population starts to recede and age. Just look at the video ffs

            • HubertManne@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I used that term in the generic and im talking about articles popping up over time not this particular one. Usually its said 20+ years away. I did not mean they were saying before we would hit it in 20 years but just that they have predicitons about peaks that seem to change regularly as time goes by. I swear we were supposed to hit peak before 8 billion at one point. EDITED - um also I read the article but did not watch a video. Im not sure what video you are talking about but I do use no script and by and large do not watch videos. That being said my conversation has not been about this particular article but about the general subject of overpopulation. Which I think we are. Based on what I have wrote. Which by the way. ARE OPINIONS. As is everything anyone writes in forums.

    • Jamie@jamie.moe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Technically yes, with perfect or near-perfect management, we could double our population and minimize the damage. But realistically, our resource usage will certainly continue at a rate similar to or more than it is now.

      The good thing is, birth rates are proportional to available resources, quality of life, and education; and birthrates globally are already on a decline in non-developing countries. Low birthrates have negative implications on society, but for the planet as a whole, less humans are a good thing

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is so wrong on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin…

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are more than enough resources to go around, and we aren’t going to start killing off new people to sustain greedy and wasteful old people.

      I mean, resource depletion is a thing… I’m not sure anyone can academically honestly claim that there is enough fresh water dispersed around the globe to where it would prevent mass migration.

      Population is growth is not a unstoppable phenomenon and will soon stagnate.

      Right, but that’s not what people are claiming. Our ability to sustain this level of population is completely dependent on complex logistics systems, built around an economical model based on exponential growth.

      We could probably sustain a population of 12 billion people with the complicated system of trade and shipping we have now, but that’s assuming the trade and logistical system will remain feasible in the future.

      In reality the current global population is higher than what the globe could support without the use of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer derived from fossil fuels. If we ran out of fossils fuels, or if the trade of these fertilizers goes up in price due to our departure of utilizing fossil fuels… We’re likely to see famines on a scale not seen in hundreds of years.

      • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        First off we have plenty of other sources of fertilizer, and while there would be impact on how things are done now with synthetic fertilizer, if wouldn’t be the end of the world like you imply it would.

        You’re like someone 200 years ago saying “if all the horses died we wouldn’t be able to travel”. It’s so shortsighted it’s funny.

        And of course the entire world is just going to migrate and die of thirst, they definitely won’t desalinate and shove the brine in the environment. That doesn’t fit the overpopulation fearmongering.

        We’d have all these problems at 4 billion people, it makes no difference

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          First off we have plenty of other sources of fertilizer

          Not in any amount that could sustain the industrial levels of farming that is required to feed the global population.

          If we were dependent on the natural nitrogen cycle we wouldn’t be able to sustain our current population without turning everything into one giant farm.

          You’re like someone 200 years ago saying “if all the horses died we wouldn’t be able to travel”. It’s so shortsighted it’s funny.

          I just don’t think you know anything about the nitrogen cycle, or how instrumental the haber process is to food production.

          won’t desalinate and shove the brine in the environment. That doesn’t fit the overpopulation fearmongering.

          Are the rich governments going to pay for the poor nations massive desalinization systems. What about land locked countries, or areas dependent on snow melt, or aquifer?

          It’s a complicated problem.

      • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That water ain’t being taken by my fucking shower and dishwasher, and not by yours either. A handful of corporations heavily exploit these resources while giving nothing back. They ain’t doing it for you and me. We could have 1b people and that would just allow the remaining to consume and waste more, and die of climate disasters anyway.

    • BellaDonna@mujico.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Absolutely untrue and dangerous thinking, we’ve already done almost incomprehensible damage to what we call the ecosystem and biosphere, and we frame everything in human terms.

      Human activity is a major problem, and that problem scales tremendously with population. I’ve watched the natural world decline dramatically in my lifetime, the world that gave rise to human civilization doesn’t exist anymore and it’s bounty plundered.

      It used to be everyone understood human population was a problem, now it’s considered problematic to discuss, but it’s more true. I’ve watched the human population more than double, our biosphere is devastated, humans are just one species, and the world lies plundered and dying because humans think they should be allowed to live in major excess to the rest of the species in the world.

      • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re swallowing the pill that we need cruise ships, private jets, immense shipping containers etc… to sustain a modern life. Which are all the major polluters.

        War and economic competition hinders energy developments and sustainability, which is multiplied by each person. You’ll get much more out of making the live of 12b people more efficient than you will killing half of them to keep pace with what we are doing now, only to end up in a further economic problem and likely to keep growing the population while destroying what’s left.

        • BellaDonna@mujico.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m actually not. I’m anti capitalist and pro communist, I’m still actually aware of the massive amount of farmland and logging operations needed for basic housing and food, I know how long it takes to grow trees, and understand that we can’t realistically replace old growth forests and their natural canopies. I understand how much water is available in the Middle East, Northwest Africa, and the Midwest United States, and the already absurdly unsustainable cities in those geographic areas, I understand climate change and the monumental and existential threat that poses.

          I promise, we cannot sustain this many humans, we cannot sustainably produce consumable fuel for this many humans even now, it is actually going to effectively ‘run out’ ( being infeasible and hugely damaging to the flora and fauna of the area )

          You must be young and inexperienced, untravelled and in an informational and cultural bubble, it should actually be impossible for you to be so wrong otherwise.