Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by entity345 2664 days ago
Because we're on track to be 10 billion soon.
3 comments

Small nitpick, but it's estimated that global population will peak at approx. 8.7 billion before starting to decrease. See: https://www.cnbc.com/id/101018722
That's very optimistic.

"The median estimate for future growth sees the world population reaching 8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100" (2017)

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...

People typically have fewer kids as their society develops. Average age in the developed world is almost double of places like Africa. There is some evidence that slowing or decline in population is a reasonable expectation.

Also, from Wikipedia:

Low estimates suggest a decline

Moderate estimates suggest a plateau

High estimates suggest constant increase

Time will tell, and estimates suggest that the earth can comfortably support ~10bn

---

I don't think housing prices have much to do with population increase, but more to do with urbanization (as well as increasing wage gaps).

People are flocking to existing cities, and the more center you are the higher prices are.

This pushes people to the outskirts, which become more urbanized, which spreads urbanization through the same cycle.

Increased urbanisation is at best marginal in Western countries. This is not what is driving prices.

But top places like London now attract from a global pool of billions.

People need to realise that a world with 10 billion does not look like a world with 2 billion.

Lastly, the planet has trouble with us now... It's terrorism to suggest that 10 billion is just fine.

>Lastly, the planet has trouble with us now... It's terrorism to suggest that 10 billion is just fine.

Calling it terrorism is a bit absurd.

It's totally possible (and even likely within our lifetimes), but that doesn't mean that there aren't huge logistical issues to overcome for it to be comfortable.

One of the main problems is that the world population is so widely distributed. We can already feed and house everyone, we already have more resources than what would be required... they're just not distributed appropriately (some due to hoarding, some due to supply chain barriers, political borders, etc).

Considering the current environmental issues this is not absurd at all.
That’s the global pop, not the UK’s.

The UKs pop should dropping, if not for immigration which the UK can control if they wanted too (being an island surrounded by rough seas and rich neighbors).

And because a much larger percentage of those people want to live in big cities compared to 50 years ago.
In developed countries things haven't changed that much.

If you look at London (since that's essentially the article), population has actually only reached back to its 1950 level.

But attractive cities can now pull people and investment from a global pool of billions of people and thus the market does its thing and prices move accordingly.

It's definitely a thing in the US. 64% of the population lived in urban areas in 1950 compared to 81% in 2010.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta...

Be careful of that though. Urban is very broadly defined by the census. I live in a 7,000 person town 40 miles outside of a major city. Myself and 2 neighbors are collectively on 75 acres and are adjacent to conservation land. This area is considered urban.
It was 74% in 1970 (50 years ago). It is not a massive change.

The massive change in urbanisation is happening in developing countries. In developed countries it happened earlier and is not really a thing anymore.

I haven’t seen recent details but as of a few years ago, there was an uptick in college educated young people moving to a handful of mostly coastal dense urban cores but the overall urbanization trend in the US was rather limited.