4.6 Article

Footprints to singularity: A global population model explains late 20th century slow-down and predicts peak within ten years

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247214

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Traditional methods of projecting future global human population growth based on birth/death trends overlook limitations and the impact of global carrying capacity. Recent data suggests that the global biocapacity may have already decreased to half of its historical value and the carrying capacity may be at its 1965 level and decreasing. Population projections also rely heavily on the fragility or robustness of essential ecosystem services.
Projections of future global human population are traditionally made using birth/death trend extrapolations, but these methods ignore limits. Expressing humanity as a K-selected species whose numbers are limited by the global carrying capacity produces a different outlook. Population data for the second millennium up to the year 1970 was fit to a hyper-exponential growth equation, where the rate constant for growth itself grows exponentially due to growth of life-saving technology. The discrepancies between the projected growth and the actual population data since 1970 are accounted for by a decrease in the global carrying capacity due to ecosystem degradation. A system dynamics model that best fits recent population numbers suggests that the global biocapacity may already have been reduced to one-half of its historical value and global carrying capacity may be at its 1965 level and falling. Simulations suggest that population may soon peak or may have already peaked. Population projections depend strongly on the unknown fragility or robustness of the Earth's essential ecosystem services that affect agricultural production. Numbers for the 2020 global census were not available for this study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available