[KingM]

Like any other species, populations within the human race expand and contract as they interact with their environment and come into contact with other populations. Scientists can trace the expansion of the Greeks or can see the remnants of Spanish mixture with the native population of the Americas through genetic studies, but it is only in the modern times that we have the information, the statistical tools, and the awareness to watch this transition as it occurs.

Some demographic predictions for the next hundred years:

Read the rest here.

[lotrfan55345]

I'm suprised they didn't predict China to still be a poor 3rd world country. If there is no petro-collapse, that statement may prove very well true, as well as their population-collapse in the 22nd century as birthrates decline.

Also with ethnic-Chinese replacing the role of Jews in the USA

[UIUCstudent01]

Interesting but world events can easily change all those birthrates and deathrates... WW2 in a way created the baby boomers... Poland had a 1/3 of their population killed...

What would energy impoverishment in 2050 (or earlier) lead to? There's all sorts of possibilities...

Then there are peaceful economic options..

[pea-jay]

Demography is that imprecise science people turn to better understand the future. The only problem is demographic forecasting is strongly dependent on the concept of ceteris paribus, keeping as many variables constant, much as they are today.

Which is, when you think about it, ridiculous.

Simply looking at today's populations and extrapolating outward by using even advanced analysis taking into account birth, death, intermarriage, and migration factors on an-age segregated basis, neglects macro level changes (fossil fuel depletion, food issues), regional factors (the viability and advantages of certain regions over others), warfare, social changes, natural disasters and wild card factors. To add in those factors increases the complexity exponentially, something most demographers are incapable or unwilling to under take. So they make their best guesses on what passes for "constant" today and the rest end up running with it.

I as a part time demographer, I used to assist my employer understanding state demog figures as well as assisting the state of California make them in the first place. When we did what is now the Series 2004 projections, the state looked to us (the local officials) for guidance on local issues that the state should incorporate into their projections. At the time, I was unaware of peak oil or even really gave much thought to resource depletion in general. Neither did anyone else on the state panel. Instead we focused on identifying local factors that could affect future year numbers (general plan elements) and trying to pick up on local trends to gain a better idea if that trend will alter the future numbers or is simply an anomoly.

So we kept most non-population factors constant (equal access to resources, land, education, no changes in immigration law--or enforcement, and no war, famine or catastrophe) and made our best guesses on future birth and deathrates and speculated on how many folks (and which kinds) would enter and leave the state.

The result are figures that I can only begin to laugh at, especially 20 years and more out. For starters, once you go past that point, most of those individuals that will enter their reproductive years have not yet been conceived themselves. It's pretty obvious, that you have to exist first, before reproducing. You can go on from there and figure out the holes in this methodology.

From a peak perspective, the most glaring is the lack of consideration we and just about every other prognosticator has given to the role that access to resources have on our own population numbers. Unfortunately, those assesments are hard to change until they actually do. So, we have to wait until war and famine strike us before our demographers can predict them

Way to go, that's some accuracy!

If I were asked to repeat my role, I'd bring up resource depletion. However, unless we started to actual effects on population, my suggestions would be shot down.

That's the essence of demography in a nut shell. A simpler analogy is that it is like driving in the fog. You only see whats in front of you when it IS in front of you. Dont look to demographers to see what the future is like. For the most part they arent much better than economists.

This piece here falls for too many of the standard assumptions and is no more special than state facilitated projections.