Home / Business / Smart Takes
Follow this blog:
RSS

The global population will reach 7 billion this month; here are 7 things you didn’t know

By | October 24, 2011, 8:02 AM PDT

On October 31 of this year — exactly one week from today — the world’s population will reach seven billion.

To commemorate (or perhaps caution against?) the event, the United Nations Population Fund unveiled a new public website called 7 Billion Actions that gives the UN, local governments, economists and NGOs access to data predicting population growth over time.

Instead of a spreadsheet, the public now has an interactive dashboard (it’s in the “Data” section) that offers hard numbers on the impact that unchecked population growth could have on policy, education and healthcare, among other areas of interest.

Here are seven things to know about the milestone:

  1. It took humans until 1800 for the world’s population to reach 1 billion. Now it only takes about 13 years to add another billion people — and every year, even though fertility is declining, our population increases by about 80 million people.
  2. 215 million women would like to avoid or delay childbearing, but have no access to contraceptives. A thousand women die giving birth every day.
  3. Worldwide, women are having about half as many children as they did 50 years ago. Since 1950, the average size of a family declined from 6.0 to 2.5 people.
  4. In 1950, 1 in 5 children died before the age of 5. Today, 93 percent survive.
  5. By 2025, India is expected to have more people than China. About 3 billion people alone live in the emerging economies of China, India, Brazil and Indonesia.
  6. Young people make up 43 percent of the world’s population; in the least developed countries, they represent 60 percent of the population.
  7. The rate of growth of people age 60 or older is growing at twice the rate of the rest of the world’s population. By 2040, nearly 1 in 4 people will be over age 60.

The dashboards are powered by technology from business analytics firm SAP.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
People who read this also liked...
16
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
%ages off
"Young" isn't defined but, the figure for developed countries should definitely be lower than for the world as a whole.

"6.Young people make up 43 percent of the world???s population; in developed countries, they represent 60 percent of the population."
Posted by hoodedswan
24th Oct
+3 Votes
+ -
You're absolutely right, thank you
Due to an editing error, it should have been "least developed." I've corrected the post.
Staff
Posted by andrew.nusca
24th Oct
+4 Votes
+ -
Question.
Why was Africa not mentioned? Africa has seen a huge population explosion from 220 million in 1950 to over 1.1 billion by 2009.

Which is kind of ironic when for 40 years the people of western nations have heard non-stop guilt trips of how many people are starving to death every day in Africa.

One has to question what is going on when some people starve to death in a part of the world that sees a 500% increase in population in 60 years. Some one is getting fed well.

For a comparison, the population of the US has doubled in the same time frame. A significant portion of that growth was via immigration, not native birth rates.

In recent years the US population would be dropping if immigration were taken out of the equation. Africa???s population growth has been 100% birth rate driven.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 24th Oct
+5 Votes
+ -
No continents were mentioned.
In case you didn't know Africa is a continent not a country. Look at the map and you'll see that most of Africa is not a major contributor to the world population. Nigeria is the only country even in the red. There are 54 diffrent countries in Africa and as a whole the continent ranks 4th in population density.
Posted by Greenman76
24th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
No Continents ...
@Greenman76 ... Easy now, settle down. Your attention to obvious makes little impact and clouds the point. "Hates Idiots" makes a very valid statement. Somebody is being well fed in Africa but not the multitudes.
Posted by Hal_9001
25th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
I know it is not a country.
But in a story about exploding global population it is kind of dumb to ignore the fastest growing part of the planet just because it is chopped up into little nations.

Africa also suffers from having the worst overall environment to live in that has the largest unsustainable population on the planet.

It is very relavent to the discussion.
Posted by Hates Idiots
31st Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
How many?
215 million is only 3.1 percent of 7 billion.

Lack of access to contraceptive products is not a cause of pregnancy. Does the United Nations Population Fund not know this?
Posted by paul.watson
24th Oct
+3 Votes
+ -
Stop Overpopulation
I have said this many times in many forums over the years. The resources of the world can not sustain an ever expanding world population. Zero population growth must be achieved sooner rather than later. One way or another it will happen. Either voluntarily by choice or by force from world war or ecological devastation. We collectively are destroying the home that we all live in and it is but a matter of a short period of time before we extinguish ourselves as a viable species if we don't get our act together very soon. In fact many experts in the field of anthropology are already warning that we may be too late to save our species. The earth will go on. The question is will we be here as well?

Don't think it will happen? Zoological experts predict that within 12 years the world's entire population of wild tigers will become extinct. Other apex predators like bears and lions and wolves are also very much in danger. What happens to an environment when you remove all the top level predators. Prey becomes unchecked and unbalance the natural order of population control. We are already watching it happen in many places throughout the world.

I hope to turn 100 by 2050. I have no human children, doing my personal part to help save our planet. Hopefully there will still be a planet that is able to support my existence at that time.
Posted by dcr100@...
24th Oct
-2 Votes
+ -
Overpopulation is stopping of its own accord...
Stop Overpopulation says: "I have said this many times in many forums over the years. The resources of the world can not sustain an ever expanding world population. Zero population growth must be achieved sooner rather than later. One way or another it will happen. Either voluntarily by choice or by force from world war or ecological devastation."

This dismal leftist alarmism is based on a false premise - that because there has been a big increase in the past 50 years there will therefore necessarily be an unsustainable further increase in the next 50.

Does anybody here see a parallel with the global warming alarmist argument: that the advanced nations have sinned as a consequence of their industrialisation and should therefore be required to reduce their standards of living dramatically to "save the planet"? It's hardly surprising that there is a parallel since the alarmism on these two issues very often comes from the same people and organisations.

The reality is that population comes under control voluntarily by the actions of individuals (not the favourite solution for a leftist). It happens when a country develops from a relatively primitive agricultural society into a modern one, achieving higher and higher standards of living. This is indeed demonstrated by the latest population statistics which already show a slowdown in most of the nations that have dramatically modernised in the last 50 years. The main big exceptions are some (not all) countries in Africa that have been held back by a combination of dictatorship, endemic corruption and (well meaning but counter-productive) "no strings attached" aid packages.

At the same time, the consequence of the astonishing growth in worldwide standards of living in the past 50 years correlates well with successful and continuing efforts to preserve not destroy the environment. This is because there is more money around to worry about these things in the advanced nations and, yes, we should be taking strong measures to preserve species and rain forests and so on as best we can.

But it is sanctimonious and dangerous to talk in terms of a solution that involves an implied compulsion to curb population. The correct positive approach is for prosperous countries to apply appropriate economic measures - for example by making investment aid wholly dependant on political change.

Ah! Hang on, I see the flaw in my argument: it is a mildly right wing view so it must be wrong mustn't it? At least it must be if you are a died-in-the-wool leftist with a natural monopoly on the truth, always seeking to apply (failed) socialist solutions to what are actually human issues of social and economic freedom.
Posted by cosserat@...
25th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Overpopulation
dcr100@ is quite correct. Unfortunately, cosserat@ can only see the tops of the waves, but can not see the depth of the ocean. I suggest he read "COLLAPSE: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed", by Jared Diamond. It is very well researched, and addresses both sides of these arguments.
Posted by Stephen-Engard
Updated - 25th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Thank You
Thanks Stephen for the literary reference. I haven't read it yet but the reviews on Amazon were impressive. Have ordered the book and look forward to expanding my knowledge on the subject.
Posted by dcr100@...
26th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Naive
Sorry cosserat to burst your bubble to think that we will grow our way out of this problem by elevating other countries to our standard of living. You are naive to believe that we can continue to add population to the world with everyone expecting to live like people in the United States and Europe. Western society consumes more than its fair share of world resources every day. Just look at our thirst for fuel, consuming approximately 25% of the world supply by 3% of the world's population. Other developing countries feel slighted and want their fair share, pushing the expansion for demand. We have created the problem, and it is our responsibility to fix it. And we are doing our part to reduce our percentage of the global population. But the problem is bigger than just us. China has already seen the light with their one child policy. But India and other countries are still going full steam ahead. This train is running at full throttle and we are along for the ride whether we like it or not.

Many people around the world, not just the West, recognize the danger ahead from an unchecked growth in population and the limitations that the earth's resources can provide. We are collectively starting to realize the value of a sustainable resource model that is independent of a model dependent upon fixed non-renewable resources that take millions of years to replace (ie fossil fuels and clean water aquifers). Our freedom to consume is what has lead us to this problem. Keep in mind that other people in the world look at us (the West) and want what we have, and we want to keep our standard of living or even make it better. That dichotomy is what is driving this problem. Will the solution be peaceful or not?

And as an aside, I happen to be a very conservative Democrat who often disagrees with both the left and the right on a wide variety of topics. I'm not a leftist socialist blah blah blah. I would rather think of myself as a realist who is sharing an opinion that some might find intellectual in content. Thanks for your opinion as well.
Posted by dcr100@...
26th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Just what is a "fair share"?
The problem with words like "fair" is that they are completely subjective, and depend totally on your point of view. We will never get anywhere in any debate as long as we debate the meaning of "fair".

And again, I have to repeat that as un-"fair" as it may seem that we consume as much as we do, it has been through our generosity (made possible by that very same consumption) that we've created the problem in the first place. Without our exporting of food and technology, most of this population explosion would never have had taken place. The simple solution would be to simply cut it all off and let them slowly die back to more sustainable levels. But I don't think that's desirable. Unfortunately, seeking a "fair" solution is never going to work either, and it's my prediction that any "fair" solution that involves coercion to make us consume less will have the same end result. Once we are no longer in a state of surplus, people here won't care so much about starving people elsewhere.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
26th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Sorry, my bubble isn't burst...
Thanks for your reply. I assure you my bubble isn't burst. I have indeed read Jared Diamond's COLLAPSE and, as Stephen-Engard says it is an excellent book that addresses both sides of these arguments.

My general answer to your point about the finite resource issue is that, unlike you, I am convinced that the best way to allocate resources is through the free market and not through socialist planning especially if it involves "...a sustainable resource model that is independent of a model dependent upon fixed non-renewable resources that take millions of years to replace (ie fossil fuels and clean water aquifers)." (!)

As resources become more scarce they become more expensive. Under these circumstances, human societies have proved to be incredibly ingenious at finding new solutions. You speak as if the finite resource problem is just round the corner but existing oil and gas reserves (shale gas being the latest opportunity) will provide the necessary bridge until safe unlimited alternative power sources such as thorium-based nuclear power come on stream.

Once we have unlimited power all the other worries, e.g. water resource, are solvable. Yes it may be a very different world than we can imagine right now but no different than the world we are in today would have seemed to our great grandparents of 100 years ago.

It seems to me that the worst thing we can do is to take drastic action against the 3% who have made it rich (thus collapsing western society and leading to a dark age of no growth and certainly no innovation) when there is now, with the collapse of socialism worldwide following the devastating "experiment" called the USSR, an inspiring opportunity to use the free market to ensure that the other 97% also enjoy the same standard of living as we do. That is why I think Western countries should concentrate on helping developing countries along the path to prosperity - and not by putting socialist obstacles in their path.
Posted by cosserat@...
26th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
And he should read "Entropy" by Jeremy Rifkin
...
Posted by Lightning Joe
26th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
Cosserat: What an antiquated crock!
Cosserat is showing his blind spot, and it's one that is only possible now, because it has been with him for many years already.

He says concern with the degree of overpopulation is pointless, because it will eventually straighten itself out anyway, "by the actions of individuals."

Yes, it will do that, cosserat; but you won't like having to live through that era any more than I will -- even if you ARE sequestered in a bomb-proof, fully-stocked refuge in the mountains somewhere. Which is the ONLY way I can see you maintaining your fine disregard for the coming human misery of that "readjustment."

Yes, the figures "already show a slowdown" in population growth, but the damage is already done; just as the most damaging effects of Global Warming are also now unavoidable. Clear danger signals were ignored in both cases, and it is now far too late for any but the most egregious (and unacceptable) measures to have any real helping impact at all, on the basic problems.

And I don't want anyone to miss the plain fact that YOU and your kind are to blame for our putting off action on this need. If we had taken this problem seriously at a governmental level decades ago, we might have a chance now to avert the worst effects. But thanks to YOU and the other deniers, we are now out of options.

You circle all of the Capitalist Free Marketers around your fire and sing Kumbaya to Global Capitalism; while the fire of our cultures continues to change our erstwhile promising future into a dark chaos of spent resources.

And what is your "solution" to the problem? Why it lies in "individual choices," a commodity that is notoriously inept in the face of real large-scale need, and notoriously susceptible to corporate propaganda as well.

Any current "slowdown" will in no way obviate the fact that we have used up the easy gains, and that any increase in food production will pay the price of losing our soils to the process. No longer can we increase food production by simply developing arable lands. Water and soil availability has gone past peak; any "gains" now will depend on chemical fertility supplements: fertilizers, which have been shown to inexorably compromise soil life and soil integrity. Those soils will continue to wash into the oceans, and the fertilizers going along with them will continue to create dead zones there and kill fish.

Cosserat: you are one of the old guard and will never change your tune, I know. But you should hear it and remember it: YOU are the one who killed our planet. You and your
fellow head-in-the-sand science deniers.

No mistake. YOU.
Posted by Lightning Joe
Updated - 26th Oct
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet Community and join the conversation! Signing-up is free and quick, Do it now, we want to hear your opinion.

Join Login

Keep Up with SmartPlanet

SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter
SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter

Facebook Activity

View Results

Quick Poll

How is your organization connecting and engaging to become social?

View Results

Blog Archive