Happy (?) 7 Billion Day | Hacker News Reader

Happy (?) 7 Billion Day

blog.infochimps.com

32 pointswinniechimp18 comments

"Our teeming population is the strongest evidence our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly support us from its natural elements. Our wants grow more and more keen and our complaints more bitter in all mouths, while nature fails in affording us our usual sustenance. In every deed, pestilence and famine and wars have to be regarded as a remedy for nations as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race."

-Tertullian (a Carthaginian priest in 210 AD when the world population was 250 million)

Can we improve the ways in which we utilize the resources on our plant? Definitely, but human beings can't be measured solely by consumption, but by their ingenuity and creativity, which help us to develop new resources, find new ways to deal with challenges, and discover new ways to protect the environment.

Of course, Carthage was teeming with about half a million citizens when he wrote that, and was completely destroyed by Muslim invaders four hundred years later.

Minor point: Tertullian was an ethnic Roman born in Roman-rebuilt Carthage.

In a world with 7 billion people, even if you are one in a million, there are still 7 thousand people just like you.

If Alice in Wonderland could proclaim Happy Unbirthdays, could we then perhaps proclaim a Unhappy 7 Billion Day?

31-10-11 is no different than what yesterday was or tomorrow will be. A successful childbirth is ALWAYS a Happy Occasion ! It might be a reminder but nothing more than that. it's not the child's fault he/she was born this day .

notice that ~ 2/3 of the world population is south asia. Dear god. Nigeria and Pakistan combined have the same population as the US. Europe is a statistical error number wise compared to everything else.

Europe has about 400m people, more than the US. It's Russia that's thinly populated for its size (because a lot of it is frozen).

From wikipedia[1]:

"Figures for the population of Europe vary according to which definition of European boundaries is used. The population within the standard physical geographical boundaries was 731 million in 2005 according to the United Nations[1]. In 2010 the population is 857 million, using a definition which includes the whole of the transcontinental countries of Russia[citation needed]. Population growth is comparatively slow, and median age comparatively high in relation to the world's other continents"

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Europe

You must be referring to the European Union rather than the European continent. As of 2011, EU is now more than 500 million people.

My point is that even the narrowest measure of Europe's population amounts to rather more than 'a statistical error' as suggested above.

Death by warfare is on the decline, poverty globally is decreasing, affluence is increasing, technology is rapidly improving, communications are knitting together all cultures and regions of the world in ways we can't fully appreciate even while it's happening. Compared to even two decades ago there are millions upon millions of people who are no longer in poverty. There are countries who have become part of the developed, 1st world. And there are more countries on the way. "Developing" isn't just a euphemism for 3rd world shit-hole, a lot of countries are on their way towards the same level of affluence and development as the G8/G20.

Certainly there are a lot of problems in the world, some of them unprecedented problems. But there's little cause to bemoan the increasing population of the Earth. Human civilization is becoming more and more capable of dealing with problems like poverty, famine, environmental degradation, and even global climate change, even as it adds more and more members to its family.

In response to the deleted post below: I don't think it's fair, let alone possible, to try to prevent the developing world from becoming developed merely out of a fear for the possibility of "bad things" happening due to excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Moreover, we are already more or less past the stage where we will have to deal with the consequences of high CO2 levels, whatever they are. I think a wealthier, more developed world is far, far more likely to be able to do that.

Additionally, if it's possible for the developed world to switch to "green" energy sources economically then it ought to be possible for the developing world to do so as well.

UN World Population predictions for 2300 (page 84):

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/Wor...

Two out of three models predict decline of population after 2050.

Previous discussion from last week here:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3154913

the guy from the video is excited to see that third world countries have a young population, but we better watch these stats along with life expectancy and poverty/famine rate.

Happy?!

perhaps a ?! would be more appropriate. :)

‽

Reply on news.ycombinator.com