The world population grew by 75 million people over the past year and on New Year’s Day it will stand at more than 8 billion people, according to figures released by the U.S. Census Bureau on Thursday.

The worldwide growth rate in the past year was just under 1%. At the start of 2024, 4.3 births and two deaths are expected worldwide every second, according to the Census Bureau figures.

The growth rate for the United States in the past year was 0.53%, about half the worldwide figure. The U.S. added 1.7 million people and will have a population on New Year’s Day of 335.8 million people.

        • TheDeepState
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          10 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          Or WW3. One of the obstacles to universal basic income is too many people.

          • DannyMacEnglish
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            10 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            Won’t be any UBI in a nuclear hell scape unless it means Unusable Biosphere Integrity.

          • Fredselfish
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            10 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            We get Star Trek universe if we have one of those but not sure any of us would get to enjoy that.

      • rab
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        10 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        Careful, I got called a nazi on here for saying that lol

        • F_Haxhausen
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          10 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          Yeah. There was a guy calling everyone a eugenicist for simply saying we need less people to help bring down climate change.

          He said that was just a ploy.

          I can’t wait to not exist, for many reasons. But people like that is at the top of my list.

          • frezik
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            10 months ago
            edit-2
            10 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            If you want the population to decline, then there has to be some kind of filter for who gets to live or reproduce. Even if it’s 100% random with no racial/religious/whatever bias involved, you must still remove a significant chunk of people, or at least cause them not to reproduce. That’s the best case scenario. Even trying it is almost asking for someone to co-opt it for their fascist goals; it almost certainly won’t be 100% random, and bias towards specific populations will occur. It almost certainly will devolve into eugenics.

            The Earth can support this many people. We know how. What it can’t do is support it with utility monster billionaires around.

          • HACKthePRISONS
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            >There was a guy calling everyone a eugenicist for simply saying we need less people to help bring down climate change.

            yea. that’s ecofascist rhetoric. of course they told you what you’re doing.

            • F_Haxhausen
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              9 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              It’s fascist only if people don’t choose on their own, making the choice, entirely their free choice.

              • HACKthePRISONS
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                9 months ago
                link
                fedilink

                you don’t seem to understand that you’re just saying the same thing ecofascists say, then rationalizing it by saying “it’s only propaganda. i’m not forcing anyone to do anything”

        • Cosmoooooooo
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          All the most habitable spots are already taken. The only spots left have major disadvantages.

          You can’t just ‘spread out’ all the people. It doesn’t work that way. Not everyone wants to live on a cliffside road in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, or wherever. Nor is it advantageous in any way to do so.

          • remotelove
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            17
            ·
            10 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            Nor is it advantageous in any way to do so.

            Bullshit. Who else would want to go to such a place? Weird living conditions just take a bit of time to get used to and nobody is going to bother you.

            • girlfreddy
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              If it’s not that hard, everyone would do it.

        • bitwaba
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          10 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          All the efficiencies for transportation and infrastructure are possible because of big cities. One of the biggest contributors to us getting climate change under control will be our ability to leverage the most amount of green energy policies for the least amount of resources.

        • originalfrozenbanana
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          10 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          Which would require far more energy to support. Concentration means easier logistics, less transportation, and less overall resources required

    • CompostMaterialEnglish
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      10 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      To put in perspective, the population in 1980 was about 4.5bln. So we could erase almost half the global population and still have a workforce like 1980. 8 BILLION is way more than ever needed to exist (at the same time).