From the Daily Mail:
A planet-wide conflict that claimed as many lives as the first two world wars combined would hardly make any difference to the world's exploding population, according to a study.
The researchers claim that population growth is so out of control that even stringent restrictions on childbirth, disastrous pandemics, or World War Three would not make it manageable by the turn of the next century.
They say the global population will likely exceed 10 billion by 2100, and even in the worst case scenario the minimum it could reach would be 5.1 billion.
Professor Barry Brook, who co-led the study at the University of Adelaide, Australia, said: 'We were surprised that a five-year World War Three scenario, mimicking the same proportion of people killed in the first and second world wars combined, barely registered a blip on the human population trajectory this century.'
Rather than reducing the number of people on the planet, cutting the consumption of natural resources and enhanced recycling would have a better chance of achieving effective sustainability gains in the next 85 years, they said.
... They found that under current conditions of fertility, mortality and mother's average age at first childbirth, global population was likely to grow from seven billion in 2013 to 10.4 billion by 2100.
Climate change, war, reduced mortality and fertility, and increased maternal age altered this prediction only slightly.
A devastating global pandemic today that killed two billion people was only projected to reduce population size to 8.4 billion, while six billion deaths brought it down to 5.1 billion.
The findings are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy Of Sciences.
... 'Our work reveals that effective family planning and reproduction education worldwide have great potential to constrain the size of the human population and alleviate pressure on resource availability over the longer term.
'Our great-great-great-great grandchildren might ultimately benefit from such planning, but people alive today will not.'
Professor Bradshaw added: 'The corollary of these findings is that society's efforts towards sustainability would be directed more productively towards reducing our impact as much as possible through technological and social innovation.'Somewhere, Adolf Hitler is smiling.
Let us deconstruct what the article says versus what we already know about demographic growth. First, we know that due to low reproductive rates in much of the world, both in developed countries and many third-world countries, world population will peak at 8.5 billion to 10.9 billion in or around 2050, and slowly start to decline. So, while technically correct that the population in 2100 may exceed 10 billion, the researchers are being misleading in ignoring the peak in population in 2050. Rather, the article makes it sound like that population is increasing toward over 10 billion in 2100.
The article also does not share other pertinent facts, such as population growth has already slowed. The global growth rate peaked at 2.2% in 1963, and declined to below 1.1% as of 2012. Although it took only 12 years (between 1987 and 1999) for the total world population to increase from 5 to 6 billion, it took 13 years to add the next billion, and it is expected that it will be 14 years to add another billion. Moreover, the high population growth models presume that fertility rates will not significantly decline, but there is no historical grounds for such belief. Fertility rates in many third world countries have dropped precipitously over just the course of one or two decades to rates mirroring those of the developed world. Thus, a peak of 8.5 billion is probably more realistic than 10.9 billion.
So how do the scientists propose on dealing with the problem? Well, certainly not be encouraging innovation. Rather, they parrot the same old solutions: keeping non-Europeans from reproducing, and working toward "sustainability"--a catchphrase meaning to reduce the standard of living for the 99% though implementation of socialism.