ForumGarden

I got to wondering what the World's Population would be today if there had been no American Civil War, WW 1, WW 2, The Holocaust, 20 million Russians killed, and other events of the past 200 years that took the lives of huge numbers of people. Surely some one has done the calculations on this but I have not been able to find it. Further, what would the impact be today in terms of food, water, gasoline, air quality, medical care and over all quality of life. As sad and unfortunate as those events have been, I can't help feel that for those of us still living life is better than it might have been.

Lon;1413953 wrote: I got to wondering what the World's Population would be today if there had been no American Civil War, WW 1, WW 2, The Holocaust, 20 million Russians killed, and other events of the past 200 years that took the lives of huge numbers of people. Surely some one has done the calculations on this but I have not been able to find it. Further, what would the impact be today in terms of food, water, gasoline, air quality, medical care and over all quality of life. As sad and unfortunate as those events have been, I can't help feel that for those of us still living life is better than it might have been.


It would be extremely difficult to calculate as the majority of deaths from the wars would have been men and the wars tended to be followed by baby booms. I'm not sure that the impact would be as large as one would imagine.

We lost almost a million from 40 million in WW1 and the effect was barely discernible by the mid 1920's according to a graph I saw many years ago in some book or another. France in WW1 and Germany or Russia in WW2 might have a different tale to tell, though.

In a way I mourn the lost potential as much as the deaths. How many poets cut down before their time? Great statesmen who never were? The sculptors and artists, the singers and scientists who never came home, and the devastated emotional lives of those they left behind.

I read somewhere in the last year or so that statistic show that when the density of the population in a given area increases reproduction slows down.

I have always understood one of the biggest words in the language is "IF"

If my math is correct, the attached link will show 158,000,000 in just the 20th Century. Now taking that many males and females out of production has had to have some impact on today's quality of life.

Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls

Ahso!;1414011 wrote: I read somewhere in the last year or so that statistic show that when the density of the population in a given area increases reproduction slows down.


I didn't see population density as being a major contributing factor to lowering reproduction, as much as higher standard of living, and education, and probably infant mortality rates.

Some digging into the stats, though shows density may be as much a contribution as the others.

Though there appears to be some influence from density.

India, for example comes in at 18 for population density, while 109 by birth rate, and 90 by cost of living.

Nations by birthrate

Nations by Population Density

Nations by Cost of living Not exactly the same as standard of living, but best I found in short search.

Country by infant mortality rates

So many of the highest density nations are fairly high in standard of living charts, and very low on birthrate, with relatively low infant mortality, with a couple of notable exceptions to the last item.

Most high birthrates are in poor, moderately populated counties with high infant mortality rates.

Imagine if the Black Plague had not wiped out 1/3 of Europe's population, or if diseases brought by the Spaniards and later Europeans to the New World hadn't decimated the Native American population.

Lon;1414017 wrote: If my math is correct, the attached link will show 158,000,000 in just the 20th Century. Now taking that many males and females out of production has had to have some impact on today's quality of life.

Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls


That figure comes in at around .6-.8% of the world population.

Don't know that it would have significantly influenced the overall growth rate more than .1%.

Here is some interesting info that I found.

LarsMac;1414044 wrote: I didn't see population density as being a major contributing factor to lowering reproduction, as much as higher standard of living, and education, and probably infant mortality rates.

Some digging into the stats, though shows density may be as much a contribution as the others.

Though there appears to be some influence from density.

India, for example comes in at 18 for population density, while 109 by birth rate, and 90 by cost of living.

Nations by birthrate

Nations by Population Density

Nations by Cost of living Not exactly the same as standard of living, but best I found in short search.

Country by infant mortality rates

So many of the highest density nations are fairly high in standard of living charts, and very low on birthrate, with relatively low infant mortality, with a couple of notable exceptions to the last item.

Most high birthrates are in poor, moderately populated counties with high infant mortality rates.It makes sense too that if the people of a culture don't perceive a threat to their survival they would not reproduce out of panic.

Thanks for the stats.

The population has been growing continuously since the end of the Black Death, around the year 1400,[citation needed] although the most significant increase has been in the last 50 years, mainly due to medical advancements and increases in agricultural productivity. Although the rate of population growth has been declining since the 1980s,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

Abortion as population control is well over 50 million in the USA alone.

I wonder how we will look back on this in 100 years?

halfway;1414087 wrote: Abortion as population control is well over 50 million in the USA alone.

I wonder how we will look back on this in 100 years?


Out of interest, over what period?

Primary abortion statistics in the U.S. are available from two sources, privately from The Guttmacher Institute (AGI) and publicly from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). In 2009 (the most recent year for which CDC data is available), California, Delaware, Maryland, and New Hampshire did not provide abortion reports to the federal government. Since California has not complied with CDC requests for abortion data in many years, and since California accounts for more abortions than any other state in the U.S, CDC totals are routinely incomplete. AGI, on the other hand, is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the world's largest abortion provider. While their data is helpful, they are a much less neutral source. The following information has been gleaned from both sources to provide an overview of the frequency and demography of abortion. Additional, secondary statistics have been taken from the National Abortion Federation's (NAF) 2009 teaching text on abortion, Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy: Comprehensive Abortion Care.

Estimates are from 1973 - 2008 or 1,428,571 per year.

Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended; about 4 in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion. (AGI).

ANNUAL ABORTION STATISTICS




In 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S., down from an estimated 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. (AGI).

The annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States doubled between 1973 and 1979, and peaked in 1990. There was a slow but steady decline through the 1990's. Overall, the number of annual abortions decreased by 6% between 2000 and 2009, with temporary spikes in 2002 and 2006 (CDC).

The US abortion rate is similar to those of Australia, New Zealand, and Sweden but higher than those of other Western European countries (NAF).

In 1998, the last year for which estimates were made, more than 23% of legal induced abortions were performed in California (CDC).

In 2005, the abortion rate in the United States was higher than recent rates reported for Canada and Western European countries and lower than rates reported for China, Cuba, the majority of Eastern European countries, and certain Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union (CDC).

Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended; about 4 in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion. (AGI).


WHO HAS ABORTIONS?

In 2009, 85% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women (CDC).


Women living with a partner to whom they are not married account for 25% of abortions but only about 10% of women in the population (NAF).

In 2009, 55.3% of abortions were performed on women who had not aborted in the past; 36.6% were performed on women with one or two prior abortions, and 8.1% were performed on women with three or more prior abortions (CDC).

Among women who obtained abortions in 2009, 40.2% had no prior live births; 46.3% had one or two prior live births, and 13.6% had three or more prior live births (CDC).

Women between the ages of 20-24 obtained 33% of all abortions in 2009; women between 25-29 obtained 24% (CDC).

In 2009, women aged 20-29 years had the highest abortion rates (27.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 20-24 years and 20.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 25-29 years) (CDC).

50% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25; women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all U.S. abortions and teenagers obtain 17% (AGI).

In 2009, adolescents under 15 years obtained .05% of all abortions, but had the highest abortion ratio, 785 abortions for every 1,000 live births (CDC).

Black women are more than 4.8 times more likely than non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.7 times as likely (AGI).

The abortion rate of non-metropolitan women is about half that of women who live in metropolitan counties (NAF).

The abortion rate of women with Medicaid coverage is three times as high as that of other women (NAF).

37% of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 28% identify themselves as Catholic (AGI).

At current rates, nearly one-third of American women will have an abortion (AGI).


WHY ARE ABORTIONS PERFORMED?




On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).

One per cent (of aborting women) reported that they were the survivors of rape (NAF).


HOW ARE ABORTIONS PERFORMED?




In 2009, 82.3% of abortions were performed by curettage (which includes dilatation and evacuation). Most curettage abortions are suction procedures (CDC).

Medical abortions made up approximately 17.4% of all abortions reported (CDC).

Ninety-six per cent of the more than 140,000 second-trimester abortions performed annually in the USA are accomplished by the technique of dilation and evacuation (D&E) (NAF).


WHO IS PERFORMING ABORTIONS?




The number of abortion providers declined by 11% between 1996 and 2000 (from 2,042 to 1,819). It declined another 2% between 2000 and 2005 (from 1,819 to 1,787) It has remained stable between 2005 and 2008 (1,787 to 1,793). (AGI).

Forty-two percent of providers offer very early abortions (during the first four weeks’ gestation) and 95% offer abortion at eight weeks. Sixty-four percent of providers offer at least some second-trimester abortion services (13 weeks or later), and 20% offer abortion after 20 weeks. Eleven percent of all abortion providers offer abortions past 24 weeks (AGI).

Most abortions in the USA are provided in freestanding clinics; in 2005, only 5% occurred in hospitals, down from 22% in 1980, and only 2% took place in physician's offices (NAF).


MEDICAL ABORTION




In 2005, 57% of abortion providers, or 1,026 facilities, provided one or more types of medical abortions, a 70% increase from the first half of 2001. At least 10% of nonhospital abortion providers offer only medication abortion services (AGI).

In 2005, an estimated 161,100 early medication abortions were performed in nonhospital facilities (AGI).

Medication abortion accounted for 17% of all abortions in 2008 (AGI).




Abortion is a tool in population control in our modern world.

WHY ARE ABORTIONS PERFORMED?




On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).

One per cent (of aborting women) reported that they were the survivors of rape (NAF).


You mean no abortions are performed for medical reasons or deformities to the fetus?

Not that the reasons given are not valid. I'm not making that judgment because it's none of my business why people choose a medical procedure, unless of course, they choose to share it with me on a voluntary basis.

As for abortion being used for population control - that sounds more like a conspiracy theory than anything else. Some adults might choose abortion as a form of control over family size, but that is far and away nothing close to "population control".

Bryn Mawr;1414098 wrote: Out of interest, over what period?


halfway;1414120 wrote:

Estimates are from 1973 - 2008 or 1,428,571 per year.






So, thirty five years - thank you.

Ahso!;1414125 wrote: You mean no abortions are performed for medical reasons or deformities to the fetus?He did say "on average," but I would expect that among the 212+ percent of respondents in the article he plagiarized (LIST) that those reasons rank right up there close enough that the propagandists don't want to acknowledge it.

Ahso!;1414125 wrote: Not that the reasons given are not valid. I'm not making that judgment because it's none of my business why people choose a medical procedure, unless of course, they choose to share it with me on a voluntary basis.

As for abortion being used for population control - that sounds more like a conspiracy theory than anything else. Some adults might choose abortion as a form of control over family size, but that is far and away nothing close to "population control".
Yup. I expect it's more a result of a trend, rather than a plan. I figger the mothers were more concerned with work, school, and other responsibilities than with exploding the population.

I simply posted data available to everyone. Read it how you wish through whatever colored glasses one wears.

Use the sources cited at the beginning of the piece. The info on medical procedures is there as well.

And it's not conspiratorial as I did not posture a position. Planned parenthood was founded by a very racist woman. Do a little unbiased research on her. Her intent was population control for inner city folks.

Google Warren Buffet's motives in supporting planned parenthood.

halfway;1414133 wrote: I simply posted data available to everyone. Read it how you wish through whatever colored glasses one wears.

Use the sources cited at the beginning of the piece. The info on medical procedures is there as well.

And it's not conspiratorial as I did not posture a position. Planned parenthood was founded by a very racist woman. Do a little unbiased research on her. Her intent was population control for inner city folks.

Google Warren Buffet's motives in supporting planned parenthood.The thread is about world population, I don't care who founded Planned Parenthood in the context of this discussion. Start a thread on the subject if you like. You put forward a theory that abortion is a form of population control. It's not only a far fetched idea but it reeks of intellectual dishonest.

I get it though that you're against abortion. Saying that instead of offering propaganda is much more honest.

halfway;1414133 wrote: Use the sources cited at the beginning of the piece.
This is what I tend to do before posting. Then I can use the primary source for my support rather than putting up biased propaganda (is that phrase redundant?). Sure, it's more work, but I enjoy doing the research on topics I think are important. Plus, people take my opinions more seriously.

*sorry for the derail*

Ahso!;1414135 wrote: The thread is about world population, I don't care who founded Planned Parenthood in the context of this discussion. Start a thread on the subject if you like. You put forward a theory that abortion is a form of population control. It's not only a far fetched idea but it reeks of intellectual dishonest.

I get it though that you're against abortion. Saying that instead of offering propaganda is much more honest.


It was a post about population. You apparently got riled up about something...not sure what.

I did not state a position on the subject, but facts regarding the number of reduced population as it clearly the topic of the thread. I stated that Buffet contributes because "he" thinks it is a proper form of population control.

You seem to have taken offense to something of which you have clearly "assumed" was a position and therefore ceased all reasonable thought. If I am in error, my apologies.

halfway;1414144 wrote: It was a post about population. You apparently got riled up about something...not sure what.

I did not state a position on the subject, but facts regarding the number of reduced population as it clearly the topic of the thread. I stated that Buffet contributes because "he" thinks it is a proper form of population control.

You seem to have taken offense to something of which you have clearly "assumed" was a position and therefore ceased all reasonable thought. If I am in error, my apologies.You're forgiven!

It really isn't a personal problem with me, I'd simply like to remain on topic. As a poster, I prefer to state what I think and why I think it rather than what so-n-so thinks and why they think it.

I can understand you stating something like: x number of abortions causes me to wonder just how much of an impact it has had on world population. That's relevant. However, making a political or moral statement on abortion in this thread disguised as factually relevant is out of context. It's really that simple.

I’ll toss in my opinion so to speak … I am presuming from your Thread that you think that the population would be a lot higher? From my research it would appear as if wars, holocausts, ethnic cleansing and the like have had a very minimal effect on global population figures. In other words, it would seem that the population growth is not seriously affected by such events. Personally I think that the fertility rate and large families have more of an effect on world population figures than wars etc. For example, Africa has suffered famine and ethnic cleansing and wars since day one, yet the population has grown and grown, simply because on this continent a large family equates to wealth.

Here are some figures for you to add, subtract and toss around:

The population of Japan … the only country to ever have a nuclear bomb explode over two of its cities … in the 1930s was 71,380,000.

In world War ll Japan suffered 2,120,000 Military Deaths & 580,000 civilian deaths.

Population today …126,659,683.

A century ago less than 100 million people lived in Africa.

Today the population of this continent is 1,032,532,974

The total population of the world in 1918 was l, 950,000,000

Population of the world today 7 billion.

True enough.

While those numbers of people killed look horrendous, in reality they were seldom a truly significant percentage of the actual population.

And studies show that birthrates tend to increase dramatically shortly after drastic impacts on the population of a species.

For example, The total deaths in the US from the American Civil War we about 2% of the population.

But the population increase from 1860 to 1870 was over 26%.

There are some exceptions, of course.

The Jewish population, for example, has only now returned to near the 1920 population after being reduced by 32% in the 1940's.

It seems natural that the species (or group) would increase reproduction in the face of a survival threat and then scale it back when it (they) perceived a strain on resources. It appears that a contradiction to that is ideological drive. Our brain and our biology clash sometimes. For example, some groups believe if they continue to reproduce at a high rate by denial of the resource argument, their beliefs and values will eventually out number every other group's (Purely Darwinian, even though they deny it). OTOH contraception (and even abortion) is also a cognitive, yet natural response to a sense of a straining of resources.