Talk:Projections of population growth

Environment B‑class High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ebolap

No, predictions aren't based on the assumption that Ebola will become pandemic. 178.201.52.152 (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect numbers

The numbers of the 2010 --> 2025 prospect hhh correct. u can check it for yourself. Alot of countries have different populations in 2010 then what it says now. I editted Turkey for example: it said in 2010 Turkey had a population of 68 million, wich just isn't correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.146.183 (talk) 11:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this sentence to reflect more recent projections (2012) from the Census Bureau. " An exception is the United States population, which is expected to increase 31% from 305 million in 2008 to 400 million in 2050 due to projected net international migration.[7]" I gave a better HTML reference. The erroneous 439 million figure for the US population in 2050 shows up again below but I have not tried to edit that section. PeterRRobinson (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have used City Proper population for Seoul while using Metropolitan Area population for other cities.

The source (Hoornweg & Pope) seems a bit sloppy. The four largest cities in the Guadalajara metropolitan area (Guadalajara, Zapopan, Tlaquepaque, Tonalá) are listed as prospectively having ~5m each in 2025, which would be up to 12 times their current population. The latter three are listed with the exact same numbers for 2025, and again for 2050. I think that this is a mistake in the source, and what they actually meant is the population of the whole metro area, which should be listed only under Guadalajara.--92.214.194.103 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The presentation of the population table is misleading and incorrect

The population and projected population headings in the table need to say what year they are for. I see that the projected column is for 2025. It would be more informative if the heading said population in 2025. The population heading does not say for what year. The interpretation is different if it is 2000 than if it is 2010 or 2005. The causal reader will interpret it as the current year. My cursory reading of the article does not find the year mentioned. The table is useless and misleading without this date. Would the person who posted it please make the appropriate changes. In addition, there is a lot of clumsy and imprecise english that could be cleaned up. The information is good, it needs to be presented well. Avram Primack (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you find the article clumsy, improve it!!! No use moaning here about it!!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cant fix what I don't have the information to fix.... stop moaning about other peoples moans. Be more complete the first time. Thank you for your prompt response to the need for completeness and accuracy. Now I can use the data in the table. Avram Primack (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion

There is a discussion related to an edit to this article (un-linking the year 2030) at this user page. --EnOreg (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of Washington report

Can the figures calculated by the University of Washington be mentioned as well: see http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/09/18/world-population-to-keep-growing-this-century-hit-11-billion-by-2100/ http://www.iflscience.com/environment/human-population-may-reach-12-million-2100

Unlike the figures presented here, this new study shows that there's a 70% probability that the population increase won't level out this century, let alone drop at some point. Rather, things will just progressively get worse if nothing is done on the problem. 2A02:A03F:12D5:1A00:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

vandalized

Warning: this article has been repeatedly vandalized over the years. I will fix the one obviously bogus factoid. But if you see anything that looks bogus, it probably is -- please try to fix it! And whatever does not look wrong might still be subtly bogus... Sigh.-71.174.188.32 (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Projections of population growth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120419100504/http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/Panel_profiles.htm to http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/Panel_profiles.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai is listed twice in the 2100 column at the bottom of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.202.155 (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paris appears twice in 2100 largest cities and so does Tokyo

Just wanted to point this out.

Color choice on pie chart

The color choice on the pie chart is not good - I suggest an alternative for color blind users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welfairstate (talk • contribs) 05:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Lutz

The article does not mention Wolfgang Lutz but it does mention Jørgen Randers. Phedrence (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update this Article

This article needs a general update. About half of the references are dead, link to the wrong (or no) place, and are old and out of date. I plan to start working on that, starting today. Let me know what you think. Joe Bfsplk (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article now in much better shape. A lot of good numbers and analysis and all references are active. Next step is to re-arrange what's there a little to make it a little more coherent.Joe Bfsplk (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to slow population growth. Mortality in OECD countries varies around a mean of 3%, but will probably transpire to be higher in countries with less developed healthcare. Although several hundred million people are likely to die, most will be in post-reproductive phase of life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Conduit (talk • contribs) 18:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Future growth

With longevity trending towards uniform and stable values worldwide, the main driver of future population growth is the evolution of the fertility rate.

Despite being correct on some deep technical level, this assertion is hopelessly misleading.

Hans Rosling's Important Truths about Population Growth and the Developing World — April 2016

After an explosion of births in the second half of the 20th century, the number of children worldwide has already leveled off at around 2 billion, and should stay there at least through the century, barring a major development.
Population growth from here will mostly be determined by more 30-85 year olds existing in the future than now.
(In other words, births are nicely leveling off, but population growth must continue for a while anyways as the current crop of children grow up and have 2 children each. We currently have a very young world.)
Watch from minute 22:00 or so for this counter-intuitive conclusion.

In a different video, Rosling says that an extra billion people are expected as the present bumper crop of young people age into the newly equalized longevity curves.

Beyond that point—and not until much of this aging up plays out—"the main driver of future population growth is the evolution of the fertility rate." — MaxEnt 04:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosling is correct. What he is describing is population momentum, and MaxEnt is correct in calling it out. The Wikipedia article on that is here. I have edited that last paragraph of the lead to include a reference to it. See if that works for you. Joe Bfsplk (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid tables that show raw data

On Apr 11, ED27000 added a table of UN world population projections for every year out to 2100: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#Table_of_UN_projections. The numbers are simply copied from the UN’s spreadsheet from 2019. On 11/16/20 I deleted a similar table with the comment: "Deleted this table because: 1) this article should focus on summaries of the raw data, along with analysis of that data, and insightful comments, 2) the raw data are readily available on the internet, e.g. the UN’s website, which supplies it in the form of EXCEL spreadsheets cited in this article. These can be easily downloaded and provide far more raw data for the interested reader than this article ever could." I would suggest that we avoid dumping raw data into these articles when they are so readily available at the references. Given that, I propose that this table, and any others like it that might appear in the future, be deleted. Joe Bfsplk (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some metropolitan areas are listed multiple times, but under different names and with different populations

For example, many of the metropolitan areas in Mexico are listed under different names, despite being cities within the same metropolitan area.

Zapopan, Tlaquepaque, and Tonalá are listed as separate metropolitan areas, with the same exact population for each (5.37 million); however, all of these cities are a part of the Guadalajara metropolitan area.

Guadalajara is also listed separately, but with a lower population (4.97 million).

And, Guadalupe is also listed as a separate city from Monterrey, despite both being within the Monterrey metropolitan area. Much like the example above, Guadalupe and Monterrey are listed with completely different populations.

This messes up the table, as many other areas are left out.

Ourdearbenefactor (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear language

Upon reading this article, I was mystified by the paragraph introducing the Table of UN projections, which reads as follows: "The United Nation's Population Division publishes high estimates by born people is increasing in population, about born in population about 16 & 34 billion people, in 2124 & 2141, in the World Population. (by gender) & density."

I do not see this in the source material, and I hesitate to make the edit since I don't want to make a mistake. Can anyone help? Thanks. 13:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)